;•,:  "xcit:'!!!^: 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


..  REVIEV/  .. 


DR.  JESSE  B.  THOMAS 


ON    THE 


WHITSITT  QUESTION. 


(SUPPLEMENT  TO  A  REVIEW  OF  THE  QUESTION.) 


. . .BY. 


REV.  GEORGE  A.  LOFTON,  D.D., 

Antkor  of  Bible  Thoughts  and  Themes,  Character  Sketches,   Harp  of 
Life,  A  Review  of  the  Question,  Etc. 


"He  who  seeks  the  truth  should  be  of  no  country." — Voltaire. 
"There  are  few  persons  to  whom  truth  is  not  a  sort  of  insult." — Segur. 
"Truth,  like  roses,  often  blossoms  upon  a  thorny  stem."— //a/i«. 
"Truth, like  the  sun,  submits  to  be  obscured,  but  only  for  a  time." — Bovee, 


NASHVILLE,  TENN.: 

UNIVERSITY  PRESS  CO. 

1897. 


copyright  by 

Geokge  Augustus  Lofton,  D.D. 

1897. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTERS.  PAGB 

I.  Neal's  Statement 7 

II.  Crosby's  Account 15 

III.  William  Kipfin 22 

IV.  The  Kiffin  Manuscript 31 

V.  The  Kiffin  Manuscript — Continued ...   42 

VI.  Sum  of  the  Crosby  Argument .   50 

VII.  The  Simultaneous  Change 58 

o 

Z 

VIII.  The  Monuments 65 

d        IX.  Controversial  Writings 73 

o  X.  The  Burden  of  Proof 82 

o 
m 

^        XI.  Evans,  Muller,  de  Hoop  Scheffer  .  .     90 

<       XII.   Dutch  Antipedobaptism 98 

XIII.  Revolution  and  Evolution lu7 


QC 

•< 
QC 
OQ 


CVJ 


447931 


PREFACE. 

The  articles  of  Dr.  Jesse  B.  Thomas  on  "The  Whitsitt 
Question"  first  appeared  in  the  columns  of  the  Western 
Recorder,  and  afterwards  in  pamphlet  form,  under  the 
challenge  that  they  were  unanswerable  and  that  nobody 
would  likely  undertake  a  reply  to  them.  The  humble 
author  of  this  work  applied  to  the  Western  Recorder  for 
the  privilege  of  reviewing  Dr.  Thomas,  but  the  application 
was  declined  for  reasons  not  necessary  to  mention.  He 
also  applied  to  other  Baptist  papers  which  for  other  reasons 
likewise  refused.  His  only  recourse  for  a  hearing  before 
the  world  is  the  present  publication;  and  he  leaves  the 
success  or  failure  of  his  effort  to  the  verdict  of  his  unbiased 
readers. 

Another  reason  for  the  publication  of  this  work  is  to 
meet  more  fully  the  criticism,  in  the  Western  Recorder,  of 
Dr.  Thomas,  that  the  author  has  '■'■  misread''''  Crosby  in  the 
production  of  his  recent  book  entitled,  "A  Review  of  the 
Question;"  and  the  object  of  the  present  work  is  to  sup- 
plement that.  The  author  assumes  the  proposition,  and 
stakes  his  reputation  upon  its  demonstration,  that  Crosby^s 
account  of  the  restoration  of  immersion  in  England,  {164.1) 
clearly  defines  it  as  a  general  Baptist  movenietit  based  upon 
the  fact  that  imtnersion,  as  believers''  baptism,  had  been  '■HosV 
by  '■'■disuse,''''  and  that  there  was  no  other  period  in  the  history 
of  English  Baptists,  than  1640-41,  ivhen  this  restoration  could 
have  taken  place.  Dr.  Thomas  calls  the  movement  an  in- 
significant affair  confined  to  a  Pedobaptist  Church;  and  if 
his  position  is  not  overthrown  in  the  present  work,  then 
the  author  is  ready  to  abide  the  verdict  of  failure,  or  else 
make  his  proposition  good.  With  perfect  confidence,  he 
stands  ready  to  meet  the  issue  and  abide  the  result  until 
Crosby  and  other  Baptist  authorities  are  proven  unreliable 
on  this  point. 

The  author  begs  a  candid  reading  of  the  following  pages. 
But  few  know  anything  of  the  subject  at  all;  fewer  still 


Preface.  5 

have  read  both  sides  of  the  controversy;  and  no  man  can 
form  any  just  judg-ment  of  the  question  at  issue  without 
impartial  investig^ation.  It  will  not  do  to  take  anything 
for  g-ranted,  on  either  side  of  a  question,  which  is  a  matter 
of  leg'itimate  controversy;  and  no  man  can  know  the  truth 
with  a  partisan  spirit  which  desires  to  know  only  one  side 
of  a  question  even  when  investig-ated.  Such  a  spirit,  in 
the  search-light  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  is  unworthy  the 
claim  of  intellig^ence  and  manhood;  and  the  mercenary  or 
demag-ogical  spirit  which  allies  itself  to  either  side  of  a 
contention  like  this  in  order  to  secure  profit  or  position,  is 
simply  diabolical.  There  was  a  time  when  ecclesiastical 
anathema  and  magisterial  edict  could  throttle  investigation 
and  terrify  conscience;  but  we  have  reached  an  age  of 
learning  and  liberty,  in  which  Truth  courts  investigation, 
and  in  which  old  errors  are  dragged  up  by  their  hoary  locks 
from  the  deep  of  past  traditions  and  superstitions,  and 
subjected  to  the  scalpel  of  historic  and  scientific  methods 
of  inquiry.  The  spirit  of  intolerance  and  bigotry  is  not 
dead;  but  their  sword  is  in  the  scabbard  and  their  torch  is 
extinguished  so  far  as  the  horrors  of  physical  inquisition 
are  concerned.  Baptists,  of  all  other  people,  ought  to 
thank  God;  and  of  all  other  people,  they  should  not  be  in- 
tolerant of  any  truth  nor  of  the  investigation  of  any  error 
found  in  their  own  position.  Let  us  be  true  to  history  as 
to  the  Bible;  and  then  let  us  remember  that  we  are  not  in- 
fallible, and  that  we  have  not  a  monopoly  of  the  true,  the 
beautiful  and  the  good. 

The  author  of  this  humble  production  is  not  wedded  to 
his  view  of  the  question  at  issue.  All  his  biases  and  predi- 
lections have  been  trained  about  the  "succession"  ideal; 
and  only  in  the  light  of  later  investigation  have  his  con- 
victions changed.  He  follows  his  conscientious  conclusions 
under  the  guidance  of  God's  Spirit  and  the  truth  of  history 
as  he  sees  it;  and  he  feels  certain  that  time  will  vindicate 
Dr.  Whitsitt's  thesis  and  those  who  agree  with  him  in 
this  dark  hour  of  obloquy  and  opposition.  Dr.  Whitsitt 
has  done  a  great  service  to  the  truth  of  Baj^ist  history  and 
to  the  true  Baptist  position,  which  can  only  be  injured  by 


6  Preface. 

traditional  fictions;  and  it  has  been  the  pleasure  of  the 
author  to  contribute  his  humble  part  in  defense  of  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  theory  already  established,  independent  of  the 
Crosby  or  other  arg-uments  here  broug-ht  forward. 

The  author  has  no  fear  of  injury  to  Baptist  position  at 
the  hands  of  Pedobaptists,  or  others,  who  seek  to  pervert 
Dr.  Whitsitt's  thesis  as  an  anti-immersion  argument.  Dr. 
Whitsitt  is  thoroughly  sound  upon  every  article  of  Baptist 
faith  and  practice;  and  all  he  means  by  the  '■'■  introduction'" 
of  immersion  (1641)  in  England,  by  the  Baptists,  is  the 
^^resioration''^  of  the  ordinance,  as  Crosby  states  it,  after 
its  "disuse"  for  a  period  among  the  Anabaptists  both  on 
the  Continent  and  in  England.  For  this  fact  he  has  un- 
questioned authority;  and  while  Baptists  may  regret  that 
there  was  ever  a  gap  in  the  practice  of  their  heroic  an- 
cestors, they  are  to  be  congratulated  that  when  the  con- 
ditions changed  they  promptly  returned  to  their  "ancient 
practice  of  immersion,"  as  Crosby,  their  first  historian, 
declares.  The  Anabaptists  always  thoroughly  understood 
with  Rothmann,  Menno,  Busher,  Blunt,  and  all  the  rest' 
that  immersion  only  was  Scriptural  baptism — just  as  the 
Catholics  and  Reformers  of  the  time  held — but  they  fell 
with  the  rest  under  the  sprinkling  spell  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century.  However,  when  liberty  came  with  light,  they 
finally  returned  to  their  "ancient  practice,"  while  the 
Catholic  and  Protestant  world  have  lost  it  forever. 

G.  A.  L. 

Nashvii./  e,  July  28,  1897. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Neal's  Statement. 


WITHOUT  stopping-  now  to  consider  the  grounds 
of  presumptive  evidence  upon  which  Dr. 
Thomas  argues  the  probability  of  immersion  in 
Eng-land  and  Holland  before  1641,  in  the  first  arti- 
cle of  his  "Review  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  Question,"  1  pro- 
ceed to  notice  in  that  first  article  (pp.  4,  5^  his  use 
of  the  statement  made  by  Neal  in  his  "History  of  the 
Puritans,"  (4  Vols.,  1732  38)  to  the  effect  that  Jes- 
sey  laid  the  "foundation"  of  the  "first  Baptist  con- 
greg^ation,"  in  1641,  which  he  had  met  with  in 
Eng-land,  "thus  anticipating  Dr.  Whitsitt  in  his 
theory  by  150  years."  I  g"rant  the  value  of  long- 
continued  tradition,  the  concurrent  voice  of  histori- 
ans and  of  individual  utterances  upon  any  given 
subject  in  history;  but,  in  this  age  of  freedom  and 
research  in  which  investigation  is  no  longer  tram- 
melled by  mag-isterial  nor  ecclesiastical  authority, 
the  scientific  method  of  dealing-  with  facts  has  dis- 
pelled the  illusions  of  a  multitude  of  traditions  and 
long--believed  utterances  along  all  the  lines  of  so- 
called  history.  I  g-rant  the  strength  of  all  the  prior 
presumptions  raised  by  Dr.  Thomas  against  what 
he  calls  Dr.  Whitsitt's  "wide  and  drastic  negative;" 
but  the  only  way  out  of  the  difficulties  suggested  is 
to  g-et  at  the  facts  in  the  case,  the  best  we  can,  and 
let  the  presumptions  take  care  of  themselves,  if  they 
are  to  the  contrary.  There  is  scarcely  a  probable 
fact  in  history  that  may  not  be  obscured  by  plausi- 
ble traditions  and  utterances  which  raise  presump- 
tions to  the  contrary. 

Although  Crosby,  in  his  "History  of  the  Baptists," 
(4  Vols.,  1738-40)  mildlv  characterizes  Neal's  state- 
'(7) 


8     Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

ment  as  a  ^^siran^e  representation^''''  (Vol.  III.,  p.41) 
a  statement  which  he  did  not  seem  to  '''■understand''' 
yet,  seven  years  before,  he  had  furnished  Neal  the 
very  data  upon  which  he  made  his  statement.  Re- 
ferring- to  "a  manuscript  of  Mr.  William  Kiffin'' 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  148)  which  he  says  he  "lent  Mr.  Neal," 
Crosby  claims  that,  according-  to  that  document, 
there  were  three  other  Baptist  churches  formed, 
respectively,  in  1633,  1638,  1639,  ''before  that  of  Mr. 
Jesseys.''''  These  churches,  according-  to  Crosby, 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  147)  were  composed  of  "Baptists  who  had 
hitherto  been  intermixed  among-  other  Protestant 
Dissenters,  without  distinction  .  .  who  now  be- 
gan to  separate  themselves  and  form  distinct  socie- 
ties of  those  of  their  own  persuasion."  The  "first" 
of  these,  he  says,  seceded  in  1633,  from  the  Jacob 
Lathrop  (Congregational)  church  under  Spilsbury; 
the  second  from  the  same  church,  in  1638,  which 
also  joined  Spilsbury;  the  third  was  formed  1639,  at 
Crutched  Friars  under  Green,  Hobson  and  Spencer. 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  147-149;  Vol.  III.,  pp.  41,  42.)* 

With  this  data  before  Neal,  Crosby  seems  not  to 
"understand"  his  "strang-e  representation"  that 
"Mr.  Jessey  laid  the  foii7idation  of  the  first  Baptist 
cong-reg-ation  that  he  (Neal)  had  met  with  in  Eng-- 
land."  The  truth  must  be  that  Crosby,  in  his  ap- 
parent puzzle  at  Neal's  statement  has  only  the  org-an- 
ij;ation,  but  not  the  baptism  of  these  two  churcht  s 
in  his  mind;  for  without  reference  to  the  mode  of 
baptism,  Crosby  reg-ards  these  churches  as  "Bap- 
tist" before  the  restoration  of  the  "ancient  practice 
of  immersion"  by  the  "Baptists  of  Eng-land,"  as  re- 
corded  by  him  (Vol.  I.,  p.  96-107)  at  the  time  of 


♦Evidently  there  is  some  mistake  abou'  the  secession  of  1638,  being-  a 
church,  since  it  joined  Mr.  Spilsbury,  who  at  this  time,  was  pastor  of  the 
church  which  secedtd  in  1633.  Sam  Eaton,  who  went  ^ut  with  the  seces- 
sion of  1633,  is  mentloneG  with  others  in  the  Jessey  Records  as  having' 
been  baptized  by  Spilsbury  (Gould,  "Open  Communion,"  p.  csxii ). 
This  fact  identifies  the  secession  of  1638  with  that  of  1633.  So  it  would 
appear  that  there  were  only  two  churches  before  that  of  Mr.  Jessey 's, 
prior  to  1641,  namely,  the  1633  and  1639  organizatious. 


NeaVs  Statement.  9 

Blunt's  deputation  to  Holland,  1640.  The  '-Bap- 
tists" who  formed  these  two  churches,  1633-38,  and 

1639,  came  out  individually  from  among-  the  Pedo- 
baptist  churches  with  which,  according-  to  Crosbj, 
they  were  "intermixed;"  and  although  "most,  or  all 
of  them,"  when  they  seceded  from  their  Cong-reg-a- 
tional  brethren,  "received  a  new  baptism" — that  is, 
believers' as  distinguished  from  infant  baptism — yet, 
according-  to  Crosby,  it  is  clear  that  not  until  after 
1638-9  did  they  receive  immersion  as  "restored"  by 
the  "Baptists  of  England"  in  1641.  Crosby  calls 
them  "Baptists"  while  "intermixed"  with  the 
"sprinkling"  Pedobaptists;  and  it  is  more  than 
probable  that  their  mode  of  baptism,  at  the  time  of 
their  separation,  was  that  of  their  Pedobaptist 
brethren  with  whom  they  had  been  "intermixed," 
and  from  whom  they  separated,  simply  and  solely 
on  account  of  their  conviction  "///«/  baptism  was  not 
to  be  administered  to  infa)its,  but  to  such  only  as  pro- 
fessed faith  in  Christ.'''     (Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  p.  148.) 

Now  it  is  also  clear  that  Neal  was  looking-  at  the 
facts  in  the  case  from  another  standpoint.  He  was 
viewing-  a  Baptist  church  as  an  immersed  body. 
The  "manuscript  of  William  Kiffin,"  which  Crosby 
had  furnished  him,  also  put  1<)41  as  the  date  of  re- 
storing- immersion  as  believers'  baptism,  through 
Richard  Blunt,  to  the  secession  which  took  place  in 

1640,  from  the  Jessey  and  the  Spilsbury  churches; 
for  Blunt  was  a  member  of  the  Spilsbury  church, 
and  out  of  the  two  churches,  evidently  another 
church  was  formed,  the  '"foioidalion'"  of  which  Neal 
ascribes  to  Jessey.  He  saw  in  the  Kiflin  Manuscript 
and  other  testimony,  in  1()40-41,  a  new  church 
founded  upon  tne  assumption  that  baptism  "ought 
to  be  by  dipping" — '■'none  having  then  so  practiced 
in  Kng-land  to  professed  believers.'"  He  knew  from 
these  manuscripts  that  Blunt,  Lucar  and  others  of 
the  "forenamed,"  who  united  with  some  of  Jessey's 
people  in  the  movement,  belonged  to  the  Spilsbury 


10  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Tho/nas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

church,  and  that  therefore,  Spilsbury's  church 
could  not  have  been  an  immersion  body.  Why? 
Because  the  "forenamed,"  as  well  as  those  of  Jes- 
sey's  people,  would  have  known  the  fact;  and  with- 
out such  knowledg^e,  the  main  paragraph  of  the  Kif- 
fin  Manuscript — "none  having-  then  so  practiced  in 
Engfland,  etc." — would  not  have  been  inserted.  So 
of  the  other  church  of  1639 — and  so  if  the  Helwisse 
church  or  churches  in  and  about  London — if  they 
had  been  practicing-  immersion,  such  men  as  Blunt, 
Lucar,  Blacklock,  Jessey,  Kiffin  and  the  like,  would 
have  known  something-  of  the  fact,  and  would  not 
have  acted  upon  the  presumption  that  there  were 
'■'none'"'  in  Eng-land  who  then  practiced  believers' 
immersion  without  g-ood  reason  for  the  utterance. 
With  all  these  facts  and  inferences  before  him,  it 
was  perfectly  natural  for  Neal  to  conclude  that  here 
was  the  first  Baptist,  or  immersion,  church  that  he 
had  met  with  in  Eng-lish  history. 

Neal  evidently  g-ot  his  information  from  the  man- 
uscript of  William  Kiffin,  which  Crosby  had  "lent 
him" — that  is,  from  the  second,  or  1640-1641  part  of 
that  manuscript,  only  the  substance  of  which  Crosby 
uses  (Vol.  I.,  p.  101)  in  his  detail  of  the  restoration 
of  immersion  by  the  Baptists  of  Eng-land  throug-h 
Blunt,  1641.  Gould  ("Open  Communion,  etc.,"  p. 
cxxiii)  gives  this  same  second  part  of  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript  in  the  exact  words  of  the  orig-inal  doc- 
ument, including-  the  dates,  1640-1641,  and  the  main 
parag-raph,  "None  having-  then  so  practiced  in  Eng-- 
land  to  professed  believers,"  together  wiih  all  the 
details  of  the  Blunt  movement  quoted  by  Crosby  in 
his  substantial  use  of  this  same  original  document; 
and  whether  this  original  1640-1641  part  is  the 
manuscript  of  William  Kiffin,  or  the  records  of  Jes- 
sey or  other  person,  copied  by  Kiffin,  Crosby  sub- 
stantially quotes  it  from  Kiffin,  with  perfect  confi- 
dence, just  as  he  did  the  1633-1638  part  of  it.  The 
document  as  a  whole  and  in  both  its  parts  was  re- 


Near 8  ^Statement.  11 

covered  in  its  orig-inal  form  and  sent  to  Dr.  Whlt- 
sitt  by  Georg-e  Gould,  of  London,  and  with  much 
plausibility.  Dr.  Whitsitt  classifies  it  as  the  "Jessey 
Records"  with  which  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  as  sub- 
stantially used  by  Crosby,  corresponds  in  both  parts. 

The  first,  or  1633-1638  part  quoted  by  Crosby 
(Vol.  I.,  pp.  147-149)  as  "an  account  collected  from 
a  manuscript  of  William  Kiffin"  is,  at  least,  a  sub- 
stantial version  of  the  Jessey  Records.  In  the  mar- 
gin of  pag-e  149,  Crosb}'  uses  the  words,  ^'•Reco7-ds  of 
that  church"''  as  authority  upon  which  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript,  which  he  was  quoting-,  was  evidently 
based.  What  "records'  are  these  to  which  he  refers 
in  the  margin?  No  doubt  the  Jessey  Records,  which 
detail  the  same  "account"  which  he  is  here  collect- 
ing from  "the  manuscript  of  William  Kiffin,"  and 
from  which  Kiffin  drew  his  information;  and  if  the 
first  part  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  was  a  version  of 
the  Jessey  Records,  it  is  probable  the  second  part 
was,  also.* 

While,  however,  Crosby  seems  to  quote  verbatim 
the  1633  1638  part  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  (Vol.  I., 
p.  177-149),  he  seems  only  to  quote  substantially 
from  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  the  1640  1641  part  (Vol. 
I.,  p.  101  ),  omitting  only  the  1641  date  of  the  orig- 
inal document,  and  paraphrasing  the  main  para- 
graph, in  dealing  with  the  Blunt  movement  for  the 
restoration  of  immersion  in  England  in  1()41;  but 
while  he  omitted  only  the  1641  date  and  paraphrased 
the  main  paragraph  of  the  document,  he  evidently 
placed  the  orig-inal  Kiffin  Manuscript  as  a  whole  be- 
ore  Neal  for  reference,  dates,  and  all.  What  could 
Xeal  do,  therefore,  but  conclude  as  he  did  that  the 


*Dr.  Thomas  speaks  of  Crosby's  having-  the  records  of  SpiUburv's 
church  (it>33-3«l  and  the  recordsof  Hubbard's  church  (lfiil-l(.41 ).  Kvi- 
dentl y  the  records  of  the  l(.33-3.s  church,  as  indicated  al>ove  were  the  Jes- 
sey Records  upon  which  the  Kifiiti  Manuscript  was  founded:  but  the 
Hubbard  church  was  a  I'edohaiitist  and  not  a  I{aj)list  church,  according- 
to  Crosl>v  ( Vol.  1.,  i)p.  Ui2-1()5)  and  cuts  no  fif^'ure  in  this  discussion.  The 
only  records  which  Crosbv  had  of  any  Baptist  church  before  1041,  were 
those  of  Jessey  or  the  Kiflin  Manuscrlot. 


12  Review  oj  Dr.  J,  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsiit  Question. 

Jessey  Church,  or  that  part  of  it  which  joined  with 
the  "forenamed"  from  the  Spilsbury  Church,  laid 
the  "  foundation  "  of  the  first  Baptist  Church,  as  an 
immersed  body,  which  he  had  met  with  in  English 
Baptist  history? 

I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  Crosby  knew  of  the 
date,  1641,  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  or  of  the  Jessey 
or  other  records  of  which  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  is  a 
version.  Why  he  omitted  this  date  in  his  substan- 
tial version  of  Kiffin's  Manuscript,  after  quoting-  the 
1640  date,  he  does  not  say.  It  is  equally  puzzling 
to  know  why  he  paraphrased  the  main  paragraph, 
which  says,  "none  having  then  so  practiced  (im- 
mersion) in  England  to  professed  believers,"  so  as 
to  read:  "Yet  they  had  not,  as  they  knew  of,  re- 
vived the  ancient  custom  of  immersion."  The 
Bampfield  Document  (Review  of  the  Question,  p. 
232),  referring  to  the  same  period  in  which  the  Bap- 
tists adopted  several  "  methods"  for  the  restoration 
of  immersion  in  England,  declares,  like  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript,  that  in  England  the  practice  of  immer- 
sion "  had  been  so  long  disused  that  there  were  7ione 
who  had  been  so  baptized  to  be  found."  Whatever 
Crosby's  motive,  however,  for  his  omission  of  +be 
date,  1641,  or  for  his  paraphrase  of  the  main  para- 
graph, he  uses  the  second  as  he  does  the  first  part 
of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  as  his  authority  for  the 
historical  events  recorded.  As  he  gives  no  reason 
for  his  omission  of  the  1641  date  in  the  second  part 
of  the  manuscript,  nor  for  his  paraphrase — and  yet 
uses  the  document  in  recording  the  facts  which  do 
not  contradict  this  date,  nor  vitiate  the  main  para- 
graph— we  may  conclude  that  his  omission  and  para- 
phrase either  have  no  meaning  or  are  not  based 
upon  valid  grounds.  By  using  the  date  1640  (Vol. 
III.,  p.  41)  Crosby  -vdrtually  admits  the  date  1641, 
the  events  of  which,  according  to  the  manuscript  he 
quotes,  follow  in  the  order  he  gives  in  full. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  Crosby  does  not  "repudiate  " 


NeaVs  Statement.  13 

Neal's  statement,  as  Dr.  Thomas  says,  but  only 
mildly  characterizes  it  as  a  "  strang-e  representa- 
tion" which  he  could  not  "understand" — looking, 
no  doubt,  to  the  formation  rather  than  the  baptism 
which  characterized  the  existence  of  the  three 
churches  which  he  claimed  as  "Baptist"  before 
1641.  Again,  even  if  the  above  probability  may  not 
be  possible,  we  know  not  how  far  Neal's  statement 
may  have  actuated  Crosby's  conservatism  in  his 
omission  of  the  date,  1641,  and  in  his  paraphrase  of 
the  main  paragraph  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript.  He 
was  greatly  offended  with  Neal's  meager  and  preju- 
diced account  of  the  Baptists  of  England  ;  and  there 
was  a  strong  temptation  here,  without  the  desire  of 
denying  this  date,  or  of  changing  the  sense  of  the 
main  paragraph,  to  paralyze  by  omission  or  varia- 
tion the  positive  statement  of  Neal,  which,  in  Cros- 
by's view,  was  erroneous  so  far  as  the  organization 
and  existence  of  what  he  considered  BaptistChurches 
in  England  was  concerned  before  the  3-ear  1641. 

But  whatever  the  purpose  of  Crosby  in  his  omis- 
sion of  the  1641  date,  or  in  his  paraphrase  of  the 
main  paragraph  of  the  Kiffin  document,  it  is  certain 
that  he  had  the  date  and  the  paragraph  before  him 
in  the  original  form  of  the  manuscript ;  and  in  the 
light  of  other  documents  and  facts  he  has  recorded 
the  history  connected  with  this  date  and  with  this 
main  paragraph  which  confirm  the  Kiffin  Manu- 
script as  a  whole  and  in  both  its  parts  in  its  original 
form.  He  shows  that,  at  a  given  time,  after  \hM). 
immersion  was  restored  through  Blunt  and  others 
by  the  "  ENGLISH  BAPTISTS,"  according;  to  this 
Kiffin  Manuscript  and  other  historic  testimony; 
and  there  is  absolutely  no  period,  except  1640-'41, 
at  which  the  event  as  described  could  have  occurred 
in  England,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  He  gives  the 
date,  1640  (Vol.  HI.,  p.  41),  according  to  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript,  in  which  the  agitation  originated  in 
the  Jessey  Church  and  divided  it;  and  then  (Vol.  I., 


14  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

pp.  101,  102),  he  details  the  event  which  followed 
the  1640  agitation  in  the  restoration  of  immersion 
in  1641,  through  Blunt,  which  he  declares  was  one 
of  the  methods  adopted  by  the  "  Bullish  Baptists," 
without  distinction,  in  order  to  revive  the  "ancient 
practice"  which  "had  for  some  time  been  disused" 
— all  according-  to  this  same  Kiffin  Manuscript,  con- 
firmed bj  Hutchinson's  account. 


CHAPTER  II. 


Crosby's  Account. 


DR.  THOMAS  (p.  21)  affirms  that  "Crosby,  with 
the  Kiffin  Manuscript  before  him,  saw  no  in- 
consistency in  maintaining-  at  the  same  time  that 
Spilsbury's  Church  had  practiced  immersion  since 
its  formation  in  1633."  He  assumes  also  that  Cros- 
by's reference  to  Smyth  and  Helwisse  as  "  restorers 
of  immersion  "  implies  the  existence  of  immersion  in 
England  at  an  earlier  day;  and  he  bases  Crosby's 
authority  for  the  implication  upon  the  validity  of 
"oral  tradition"  within  the  limit  of  one  hundred 
years — the  time  elapsing-  between  the  events  nar- 
rated and  the  writing-  of  Crosby's  history. 

I  reply  that  Crosby,  to  the  contrary,  affirms  that, 
prior  to  the  Blunt  movement  (1640-41)  which  he 
records  from  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  immersion  in 
England  ''^had  for  some  time  been  disused''  (Vol. 
I.,  p.  97);  and  that  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  with 
which  Crosby,  Hutchinson  and  the  Bampfield 
Document  agree,  utterly  precludes  the  probability 
that  Spilsbury's  Church  practiced  immersion  before 
1640-41.  Such  men  as  Blunt,  Lucar,  Blacklock, 
Kiffin,  Jessey  and  the  like  would  have  known  the 
fact  if  Spilsbury's  Church  had  so  practiced.  Blunt 
and  Lucar,  at  least,  were,  or  had  been  members  of 
Spilsbury's  Church  or  the  secession  of  1633,  and 
would  themselves  have  been  already  immersed  if 
that  body  had  been  an  immersion  church.  In  either 
case  the  statements  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  would 
never  have  been  made  that  Blunt  and  those  with 
him  became  "  convinced  "  that  baptism  "ought  to 
be  by  dipping"  and  administered  onlv  to  believers, 

(15) 


16  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitaitt  Question. 

and  that  ^^  none  had  then  so  practiced  to  professed 
believers  in  England. " 

Agrain,  Crosby  (Vol.  I.,  p.  99,  100)  positively  re- 
pudiates the  baptism  of  Smyth  which  was,  of  course, 
the  baptism  of  Helwisse,  whom  Crosby  says  (Vol. 
I.,  p.  269)  Smyth  baptized;  and  he  affirms  that  the 
"Eng-lish  Baptists"  did  not  "approve  of"  nor  "re- 
ceive their  baptism  from  Smyth."  Crosby  reg-arded 
Smjth  and  Helwisse  as  "restorers  of  immersion" 
in  Holland;  and  in  the  absence  of  Smyth's  writings 
he  doubted  that  Smyth  baptized  himself,  as  was 
charged  upon  him  by  Ainsworth,  Johnson,  Clifton, 
and  others  in  his  own  lifetime.  Hence,  Crosby  fol- 
lowed only  one- half  of  the  "oral  tradition"  in  the 
case,  holding,  contrary  to  the  facts  of  later  history, 
to  the  probability  that  Smyth  was  baptized  by  im- 
mersion; but  he  gives  to  the  "English  Baptists" 
the  benefit  of  the  doubt  as  to  his  self-baptism,  as 
charged — the  other  half  of  the  "  oral  tradition " — 
and  he  emphasizes  the  fact  that  his  baptism,  what- 
ever the  mode,  never  succeeded  to  them.  (Vol.  I., 
p.  100).  This  excludes  the  succession  of  Smyth's 
baptism  to  the  English  Baptists  through  Helwisse 
and  the  Helwisse  Church  whom  Smyth  baptized; 
but,  as  we  shall  see  further  on,  the  b2tter  reason 
will  appear  in  the  fact  that  Smyth's  self-baptism  was 
affusion,  and  not  immersion,  and  that  there  were  no 
"immersing  churches"  at  this  early  date  in  Eng- 
land. The  plain  historical  fact  recorded  by  Crosby 
is  that  the  "English  Baptists,"  as  he  designates 
them,  restored  immersion  at  a  later  date  by  '"'■tzvo 
other  methods y 

Crosby  says  (Vol.  I.,  p.  100):  "The  two  other 
methods  that  I  mentioned  were  indeed  both  taken 
by  the  Baptists  at  their  revival  of  immersion  in  Eng- 
land^ as  I  find  it  acknowledged  and  justified  in  their 
writings." 

The  first  of  these  two  methods  was  that  of  send- 
ing Blunt  to  Holland  for  immersion  by  a  regular 


Crosby's  Account.  17 

administrator,  as  shown  by  Hutchinson  and  Kifi&n, 
and  which  occurred  1640-41,  and  as  recorded  by 
Crosby  with  the  latter  date  only  omitted.  (Vol.  I., 
pp.  100,  102.)  The  last  of  these  two  methods,  fol- 
lowing- the  first,  Crosby  proceeds  to  show  (Vol.  I., 
pp.  103-107),  was  that  of  Spilsbury,  Tombes,  Lau- 
rence and  others  who  held  that  an  unbaptized  ad- 
ministrator could  restore  baptism  when  lost;  and  he 
says:  "The  greatest  number  of  the  English  Bap- 
tists, and  the  more  judicious,  looked  upon  all  this 
as  needless  trouble  (sending-  to  Holland  for  immer- 
sion) and  what  proceeded  from  the  old  Popish  doc- 
trine (of  succession).  They  [1]  ajjirmcd,  therefore, 
(the  greatest  number  and  the  more  judicious  Bap- 
tists) and  [2]  practiced  accordi)igly,  that  after  a 
general  corruption  of  baptism,  an  unbaptized  per- 
son might  warrantable'  baptize,  and  so  begin  a 
reformation."  \i  this  method  had  been  the  practice 
of  the  Baptists  of  England  at  an  "earlier  date," 
Crosby  would  have  here  referred  it  to  an  earlier  date 
and  changed  the  order  of  its  mention ;  and  he  and  the 
writers  whom  he  quotes  against  the  Blunt  method  as 
"needless  trouble"  and  after  the  doctrine  of  Popish 
"  succession,"  would  have  quoted  the  fact  as  past 
authority  for  present  practice. 

The  Bampfield  Document  (No.  18  of  the  Collec- 
tion of  1712)  which  was  doubtless  in  the  hands  of 
Crosby  and  which  was  written  after  1681,  details 
very  clearly  the  Spilsbury-  method  of  restoring  im- 
mersion when  it  was  lost  in  England;  and  while  it 
does  not  mention  the  Blunt  method,  it  shows  that 
Smyth  was  not  a  restorer  of  immersion  in  England, 
and  that  his  se-baptism  method,  though  attempted  at 
the  time  of  the  restoration,  was  repudiated  and  went 
to  nothing.  The  only  question  of  importance  right 
here  i^  to  determine  as  to  the  possible  date  when  the 
Spilsbury  method  of  restoring  immersion  by  an  "un- 
baptized  administrator"  began.  According  to  Kiflin 
and  Neal,  the  Blunt  method,  which  the  great  body 
2 


18  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

of  Etig"lish  Baptists  also  repudiated,  was  adopted  in 
1641,  and  hence  Neal's  sug-g-estion  that  the  Church 
adopting-  this  method  was  the  first  immersion  con- 
gregation found  in  Knglish  Baptist  history.  Crosby, 
chronolog-ically,  in  the  order  of  his  narrative,  puts 
the  adoption  of  the  Blunt  method  first  and  the  Spils- 
bury  method  second;  and  after  showing"  that  the 
g"reatest  number  and  the  more  judicious  of  the  En- 
g-lish  Baptists  repudiated  the  Blunt  method  he  shows 
that  they  ^'■affirmed  and  practiced  accordingly  that 
after  -a^  general  corniptiu)i.  of  baptism,  an  unoaptized 
person  mig-ht  warrantably  baptize,  and  so  begin  a 
7'eforniation.''^  Before  this,  Crosby  says  that  the 
"  two  methods,"  with  reference  to  the  same  period 
of  time,  "were  indeed  both  taken  by  the  Baptists 
at  their  revival  of  immersion  in  Eng-land,"  and  while 
the  Blunt  method  has  the  precedence  in  the  order  of 
time,  the  Spilsbury  method  must  have  followed 
at  about  the  same  time,  1640-41.  Any  other  con- 
clusion would  do  violence  to  the  connected  and  con- 
sistent order  of  Crosby's  narrative. 

That  both  the  Helwisse  and  Spilsbury  Baptists  of 
Eng-land  practiced  affusion  before  Blunt  restored  im- 
mersion (1640-41)  is  also  clearly  probable  according 
to  Dr.  Evans  in  his  History  of  the  Early  Eng-lish 
Baptists.  (Vols,  I.,  II.,  1864.)  Besides  showing-, 
according  to  Dr.  Muller,  of  Amsterdam,  that  Smyth 
and  his  followers  were  by  their  own  confession 
^'self-baptized"*  (Vol.  I.,  p.  209),  he  shows  also,  ac- 
cording to  the  same  authority,  that  the  Smyth 
schism  from  the  Helwisse  body  was  received  by  the 
Mennonite  Waterlanders  who  were  Armiaians  and 
affusionists  and  who,  after  examining  "their  doc- 
trine of  salvation  and  the  g7-ound  and  form  of  their 
baptism,"  said:  "No  difference  was  found  between 
them  and  us."  (Ibid  p.  208.)  The  conclusion  is 
that  Smyth,  Helwisse  and  company  were  all  affu- 
sionists and  not  immersionists.  Dr.  Muller  himself 
says  (Evans  I.,  p.  223)  that  those  of  the  Smyth  fac- 


Crosby^s  Account.  19 

tion  who  had  not  yet  been  baptized,  as  it  appeared  to 
him,  were  admitted  to  the  Waterlanders  by  sprink- 
ling- and  not  immersion.  "But,"  sa3's  he,  "they 
(the  Waterlanders)  cared  only  for  the  ver}-  naiure 
of  baptism,  and  were  therefore  willing-  to  admit  even 
those  who  were  baptized  by  a  mode  differing-  from 
theirs,  just  as  we  are  wanted  to  do  now-a-days." 
Dr.  Thomas  (VIL,  p.  54)  seems  to  think  here  that 
Muller  implies  that  among-  the  Netherlanders  im- 
mersion, though  not  ordinarily  practiced,  was  not 
wholly  rejected,  and  would  not  have  been  regarded 
as  a  material  difference  in  "form  and  foundation" 
with  sprinkling;  but  even  if  this  were  true,  which 
is  not  probable,  it  is  evident  here  that  Muller  has  no 
reference  to  the  mode  of  Smyth's  baptism  which 
was  found,  upon  examination,  to  be  the  same  in 
^'■form  and  foundation  "  with  the  affusion  of  the  Wa- 
terlanders. He  was  evidently  self-  baptized  and  that 
by  affusion. 

Again,  Dr.  Evans  (Vol.  11. ,  pp.  52,  53)  admits  the 
conclusion,  "more  than  warranted."  that  there  was 
nothing  '  i  the  controversial  writings  of  Smyth 
and  Helwisse  to  warrant  the  supposition  that  they 
regarded  immersion  as  the  proper  and  only  mode  of 
baptism;  and  he  (Evans)  maintains  the  probability 
that  up  to  the  time  of  Blunt's  deputation  to  Holland 
in  order  to  secure  immersion,  both  the  General  and 
Particular  Baptists  of  England  retained  the  custom 
of  their  Dutch  brethren  in  the  practice  of  affusion. 
Evans  points  out  in  proof  of  the  fact,  the  case  of  the 
"Old  Men,  or  Aspcrsi,'"'  and  the  "  New  Men,  or  Im- 
mersi^''''  at  Chelmsford,  1646.  Even  at  that  period 
he  says  (Vol.  H.,  p.  79):  "Most  will  see  that 
the  practice  of  the  Mennonite  brethren  (affusion) 
was  common  in  this  country  (England).  These 
'New  Men'  (or  Imnicrsi)  soon  cast  them  (the  '  Old 
Men,'  or  Aspcrsi)  in  the  shade,  and  their  practice 
became  obsolete.  Immersion,  as  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, became  the  rule  with  both  sections  of  the  Bap- 
tist community.     Indeed  from  this  time  (1646),  be- 


20  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitaitt  Question. 

yond  the  fact  already  g-iven  (at  Chelmsford),  we 
know  not  of  a  solitary  exception." 

Thus  Crosby's  Account  of  the  restoration  of  im- 
mersion by  the  Baptists  of  England  by  the  "two 
methods"  described — which  evidently  took  place, 
1640-41,  according-  to  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  and  af- 
firmed by  Neal — is  here  confirmed  by  Evans,  who  is 
a  conservative,  careful,  accurate  and  unpartizan 
Baptist  historian  and  who  wrote  in  1864. 

In  his  review  of  my  book  in  the  Wes/ern  Recorder^ 
Dr.  Thomas  cites  Crosby  (Vol.  I.,  p.  99)  to  show  a 
"reformation  of  baptism,"  in  which  Helwisse  and 
Morton  joined  with  Smyth,  whom  Crosby  refers  to 
as  "restorers  of  immersion"  in  that  "latter  age," 
from  all  of  which  he  (Dr.  Thomas)  infers  an  "im- 
mersing- church  in  England,"  as  we  have  already 
seen,  at  an  "earlier  date"  than  the  KifQn  Manu- 
script ascribes.  This  "reformation  of  baptism," 
whatever  its  mode  or  manner  of  introduction,  took 
place  in  Holland,  and  long  before  Helwisse  and 
Morton  with  their  church  came  back  to  England  in 
1611;  and  this  "reformation,"  as  we  have  further 
seen,  does  not  imply  an  "immersing  church  in 
England  "  at  an  early  date,  unless  it  can  be  proved 
that  Smyth's  baptism  was  immersion,  which  is 
wholly  improbable  and  which,  if  it  was,  Crosby  re- 
pudiates as  never  having  succeeded  to  the  "  English 
Baptists,"  confirmed  by  the  Bampfield  Document. 

Smyth  and  Helwisse,  in  originating  their  "re- 
formation of  baptism"  in  Holland  simply  broke 
with  "infant  baptism,"  and  set  up  the  Scriptural 
practice  of  "believers'  baptism;"  and  although  the 
Dutch  Anabaptists  practiced  the  same  by  affusion, 
yet  Smyth  originated  believers'  baptism  by  self- 
affusion,  "  supposing  there  was  no  true  administra- 
tor to  be  found."  His  opponents — such  men  as 
Ainsworth,  Johnson,  Robinson,  Clifton,  Jessop  and 
others — charged  him,  in  his  own  lifetime,  with  his 
self-baptism,  which  he  never  denied,  but  rather  de- 
fended; but  it  was  in  later  times  that  the  tradition 


Crosby^s  Arcoiint.  21 

of  his  immersion  orig-inated.  Even  Dr.  Wall  calls 
him  the  'beginner  of  baptism  by  dipping-,"  and  he 
says  of  him  again:  "  Being-  more  desperately  wicked 
than  others,  he  baptized  himself  and  then  baptized 
others,  and  from  this  man,  the  English  Baptists 
have  successively  received  their  new  administration 
of  baptism."  (Plain  Discovery,  p.  44.)  Dr.  Wall 
also  follows  another  false  tradition,  that  Spilsbury 
went  to  Holland  to  be  baptized  of  Smyth,  when 
Smjth  had  long  been  dead  before  Spilsbury's  church 
■came  into  existence;  and  it  was  from  such  "oral 
traditions"  that  the  Pedobaptists  charged  upon  the 
Baptists  of  England  that  their  succession  in  baptism 
was  derived  from  ' ' Smyth  and  his  disciples.'"  Crosby 
says  (Vol.  I.,  p.  95)  that  the  Pedobaptists  made 
"great  improvement"  of  this  supposed  fact,  and 
tried  from  hence  to  "  render  all  the  baptizings  among 
the  English  Baptists  to  be  invalid,  supposing- ih^xxi 
to  be  his  successors,  and  that  he  was  the  first  ad- 
ministrator of  it  among  them." 

Whatever  Crosby's  opinion  as  to  the  mode  of 
Smyth's  baptism,  or  as  to  its  self-origination,  he 
proceeds  in  the  following  pages  to  repudiate  the 
"  oral  tradition"  of  Wall  and  others  that  this  bap- 
tism succeeded  to  the  English  Baptists.  Turning 
to  the  period  when  Blunt  introduced  immersion  in 
England  by  succession,  and  to  the  method  by  which 
the  Anti-successionists  followed  in  the  same  move- 
ment, he  says,  after  touching  upon  the  Pedobaptist 
argument  "against  the  reviving  of  the  practice  of 
immersion"  which  had  for  some  time  been  dis- 
used:" "I  do  not  find  any  Englishman  among  the 
first  restorers  of  immersion  in  this  latter  age  ac- 
cused of  baptizing  himself,  but  only  the  said  John 
Smyth,  and  there  is  ground  to  (question  the  truth  of 
that  also.  .  .  .  But  enough  of  this.  If  he  were 
guilty  of  what  they  charge  him  with,  'tis  no  blem- 
ish on  English  Baptists,  who  neither  approved  of 
any  such  method,  nor  did  they  receive  their  baptism 
from  him."     (Vol.  I.,  pp.  97   lOO, ) 


CHAPTKR  III. 


William  Kiffin. 


ON  page  22  (Art.  II.)  Dr.  Thomas  asserts  that 
William  Kiffin  left  Spilsburj's  Church,  ac- 
cording" to  I  vimey,  "near  1640,"  because  of  the  oc- 
cupancy of  his  (Spilsbury's)  pulpit  by  an  unim- 
mersed  minister;  and  that  this  was  the  "occasion" 
of  the  foundation  of  the  Devonshire  Square  Baptist 
Church  in  London,  "  near  1640"  by  William  Kiffin. 
"How  could  he,"  asks  Dr.  Thomas,  "about  1640 
have  led  a  secession  because  of  so  exalted  a  concep- 
tion of  the  necessity  of  immersion,  and  at  a  later 
date  have  declared  that,  in  1641,  immersion  was  un- 
known in  England?  "  As  we  shall  presently  see,  no 
such  question,  according  to  the  history  of  that  pe- 
riod, was  ever  sprung  before  1640-'41,  if  ever,  among 
the  Baptists  of  England.  This  was  one  of  the  mis- 
takes for  which  Ivimey  is  famous  in  the  history  of 
that  time,  and  in  which  he  here  misplaces  the  date 
of  a  fact  stated  by  Crosby  which  occurred  after 
1644-45,  and  not  before  or  "near  1640."  In  his  crit- 
icism of  my  book,  "A  Review  of  the  Question,"  in 
the  ]]^esle?'n  Recorder^  Dr.  Thomas  claimed  that  I 
erred  in  parenthetically  classing  Kiffin  as  of  Blunt's 
"persuasion"  (in  Crosby's  Account)  before  any 
mention  of  Blunt  had  been  made;  and  because,  while 
Blunt  was  a  successionist,  Kiffin  belonged  to  the 
flock  of  Spilsbury,  who  repudiated  succession — add- 
ing also  that  Kiffin  joined  Spilsbury's  congregation 
in  1638,  and  that  it  is  "no  answer  to  say  that  Cros- 
by is  mistaken  in  placing  Kiffin's  secession  with 

Spilsbury." 

According  to  Kiffin's  own  statement  (Ivimey  11. , 
p.  297;  Orme's  Lite  of  Kiffin,  p.  14),  he  claims  that 

(22) 


Williavi  Kiffin.  2S 

in  1638,  when  23  3-ear3  of  ag-c,  he  joined  an  Inde- 
pendent Church,  not  Spilsbury's,  as  the  sequel 
shows.  Orme  {tb/d.  p.  115,  Note  XXL),  says  of 
Mr.  Jessey:  "lie  was  pastor  of  the  Independent 
Church  of  which  Kiftin  was  a  member,  and  changed 
his  sentiments  some  time  after  KifHn  left  it."  iu 
1643  {/did.  p.  22),  after  a  return  from  Holland, 
Kiflin  quiL  business,  for  the  time,  anl  devoted  him- 
self to  the  "study  of  God's  word,"  being-  "greatly 
pressed,"  he  says,  "  by  the  people  with  whom  1  was 
a  Dicmher  {not  pastor)  to  continue  with  them" — 
evidently  meaning-  the  Jessey  people  with  whom  he 
was  associated.  With  Hansered  Knollys,  1()43,  he 
seems  still  to  have  been  a  member  of  the  Jessey 
Church  when  the  question  arose  about  the  baptism 
of  Knollys'  child  (Gould,  Open  Communion,  p.  cxxix) 
in  the  "Conference"  in  which  Kiffin  was  "one  of 
those  who  were  concerned,"  and  the  "  issue  whereof 
was  the  conviction  of  sixteen  members  against  Pedo- 
baptism "  and  their  withdrawal  from  the  Jessey 
Church.  Kiffin,  according  to  (iould  (p.  cxxx),  was 
probably  among-  the  number  who  withdrew;  and,  if 
so,  he  was  still  "counted  as  one"  of  the  Church  in 
1644,  since  none  of  the  sixteen  were  excluded  down 
to  May  of  that  year.  Crosby  (Vol.  III.,  p.  4),  al- 
ludes to  this  same  "Conference"  of  1643,  and  men- 
tions the  fact  that  Kiffin  was  "one  of  those  con- 
cerned" in  it;  and  he  immediately  adds  that  Kiffin 
"joined  himself  to  the  church  of  Mr.  John  Spils- 
bury;  but  a  difference  arising  about  permitting  per- 
sons to  preach  amongst  them  that  had  not  been  bap- 
tized by  immersion,  they  parted  b\  consent,  yet  kept 
good  correspondence."  Some  time,  then,  in  1643, 
Kiffin  withdrew  from  Jessey,  and  afterwards  j(^incd 
Spilsbury;  and  after  that  he  withdrew  from  Spils- 
bury  for  the  reason  expressed  l)y  Crosb)^  above — 
if,  indeed,  such  an  event  ever  happened. 

Both  Crosby  and  Ivimcy  err,  however,  in  placing 
Kiffin  with  Spilsbury  in  1638;  and  Ivimey  makes  an- 


24  Review  of  Dr.  J.  II.  TJiomds  on  the  Whitsiit  Question. 

other  mistake  (Vol.  II.,  p.  297)  in  assig-ning- 1638  as 
the  date  of  Kiffin's  secession  from  Jessey  and  union 
with  Spilsbury.  Worse  still,  he  errs,  by  his  own 
confession,  when  he  says  that  "soon  after  1G40,  as 
it  is  supposed.,"'  the  Devonshire  Square  Church  was 
founded,  and  Kiflin  became  pastor.  According-  to 
Gould  (Open  Communion,  p.  cxxxi)  Ivimey,  (Life 
of  Kiffin,  p.  17),  corrects  his  mistake,  latterly, 
wherein  he  says:  "About  the  year  1653,  he  (Kif&n) 
left  Mr.  Spilsbury,  and  became  the  pastor  of  the 
Baptist  church  which  for  many  years  met  in  Fisher's 
Folly,  now  Devonshire  Square."  "This,"  says 
Gould,  "  is  the  latest  form  in  which  Mr.  Ivimey  has 
stated  his  conclusion  as  to  the  date  of  the  formation 
of  this  church.  In  1814,  when  he  published  Vol. 
II.  of  his  History  of  the  Eng-lish  Baptists,  he  '  sup- 
fosed''  that  it  was  founded  soon  after  1640  (p. 297). 
Of  course  his  supposition  was  incorrect,  as  Kifl&n 
was  not  a  Baptist  at  that  date.'' 

Dr.  Thomas  claims  that  Kifiin  was  pastor  of  the 
Devonshire  Square  Church  in  1644,  when  the  seven 
churches  of  London  issued  the  Confession  of  that 
date;  but  his  man,  Ivimey  (Vol.  II.,  p.  296),  has  Mr. 
Keach,  and  not  Kijfin,  pastor  of  that  church  at  that 
time!     Alas!  for  Ivimey! 

Gould,  however  (Open  Communion,  p.  cxxxii), 
holds  that  even  Ivimey's  later  \i&w  (Life  of  Kiffin, 
p,  17),  is  probibly  wrong-,  and  that  Kifl&n  moved  to 
Devonshire  Square  with  his  cong-regation  after  1653. 
He  infers  the  fact  from  the  "return  made  to  Arch- 
bishop Sheldon  by  the  Bishop  of  Lonaon.  in  1669, 
of  the  Conventicles  in  the  Diocese  of  London,''  in 
which  is  found  no  mention  or  Fisher's  Folly  or 
Devonshire  Square;  and  the  only  entry  in  the  "  re- 
turn "  in  relation  to  Kiffin  is  that  he  was  "preacher " 
or  "  teacher"  in  "  Finsbury  Court,  over  against  the 
artillery  g-round  in  Morefield  " — or  Bunhill  Field. 
If,  according-  to  Ivime}^  Kiffin  was  not  pastor  of 
Devonshire  Square  Church  in  1644  (nor  founded  it 


William  Kiffin.  25 

in  1640),  he  may  still  be  mistaken  as  to  1653.  From 
certain  data,  Gould  thinks  that  Kiffin,  after  leaving- 
Jessey,  1643,  and  after  a  short  connection  with  Spils- 
bury,  united  with  Patient  in  another  organization 
which  was  one  of  the  "seven"  churches  which  is- 
sued the  "  Confession  "  of  1644,  at  the  top  of  the  list 
of  the  signers  of  which  are  found  the  names  of  Kif- 
fin and  Patient;  and  that,  many  years  afterward, 
Kiffin  removed  with  his  church  to  Devonshire 
Square.  He  speaks  of  the  history  of  the  church  as 
traditional,  and  says  that  the  "  orig-inal  records" 
of  the  church  "are  lost"  (p.  cxxxi);  and  if  we  are 
to  judge  from  the  conflicting- accounts  of  Ivimey,  its 
early  history  must  be  a  matter  of  tradition. 

At  all  events,  the  probability  is  that  Kiffin  never 
became  a  Baptist  until  1641.  Gould  logically  draws 
this  conclusion,  (Close  Communion,  pp.  cxxvii., 
cxxviii.,  cxxix.),  from  Kiffin's  "Sober  Discourse  of 
Rig-ht  to  Church  Communion,"  .  .  .  London,  1681, 
in  which  he  says:  "I  used  all  endeavors  .  .  .  that 
"I  mig-ht  be  directed  in  a  rig-ht  way  to  worship;  and 
"after  some  time  concluded  that  the  safest  way  was 
"to  follow  the  footsteps  of  the  flock,  namely,  that 
"order  laid  down  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and 
"practiced  by  the  primitive  Christians  in  their  times, 
"which  I  found  to  be  that,  after  conversion,  they 
"were  baptized,  and  added  to  the  church,  and  con- 
"tinued  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  fellowship,  break- 
"ing-  of  bread  and  prayer,  according-  to  which  I 
"thought  myself  conformable,  and  have  continued 
"in  the  profession  of  the  same  for  these  forty  years.'''' 
"Forty  years,"  subtracted  from  1681,  the  year  in 
which  he  wrote  his  "Sober  Discourse,"  leaves  1641, 
the  year  in  which  Kiffin  became  a  Baptist.  Accord- 
ing- to  Crosby  (Vol.  I.,  p.  310),  this  was  the  year 
(1641)  in  which  "a  much  greater  number"  than 
before  withdrew  from  Mr.  Jessey's  church  of  which 
Kiffin  was  then  a  member,  and  were  l)apti/Cod,  ac- 
cording- to  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  by  Blunt  and  Black- 


26  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsiit  Question. 

lock;  and  although  Kiffin's  name  does  not  appear 
among-  the  fifty-three  baptized  in  January  ot  that 
year,  he  may  have  been  baptized  among-  the  number 
immersed  in  the  latter  part  of  this  year,  or  after- 
wards. At  all  events,  in  1642,  we  find  him  in  a 
dispute  with  Dr.  Featley,  as  a  full-fledged  Baptist 
— probably  still  remaining  with  Jessey  'till  1643. 

The  history  of  Kiffin,  then,  so  far  as  it  can  be 
gleaned  in  its  connection  with  the  Blunt  movement, 
accords  with  the  facts  of  his  own  manuscript,  with 
the  exception  that  he  did  not  unite  with  Spilsbury 
in  1638.  The  Jessey  Records,  of  which  the  Kifl6.n 
Manuscript  is  evidently  a  version,  gives  the  names 
of  Thomas  Wilson  and  others  who  are  represented 
in  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  as  being  dismissed  with 
William  Kiffin;  but  the  name  of  Kiffin  is  properly 
left  out  of  the  Jessey  Records  of  1638;  and  this  ac- 
cords with  the  facts  of  history,  namely,  that  in  1638, 
according  to  Kiffin's  own  statement  (Ivimey,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  297;  Orme,  p.  115),  he  joined  an  Independent 
church,  which  proves  to  be  Jessey's  instead  of  Spils- 
bury's.  How  the  mistake  occurs  in  the  Kiffin  Man- 
uscript we  do  not  know;  but  the  Jessey  Records  on 
this  point  correct  the  mistake  and  conform  to  the 
facts  of  Kiflfin's  history  in  connection  with  the  Blunt 
movement.  The  truth  is  that,  as  Crosby  says, 
Kiffin,  "  who  lived  in  those  times,"  was  "  a  leader 
among  those  of  that  persuasion" — that  is,  of  the 
Blunt  "persuasion;"  and  may  have  been  baptized 
by  Blunt  or  Blacklock,  upon  his  conversion  to  Bap- 
tist principles  in  the  latter  part  of  1641.  He  was, 
in  other  words,  a  successionist;  and  in  course  of 
time  he  became  a  regular  "  Landmark  Baptist''  of 
the  modern  type — not  only  a  close  communionist, 
but  opposed  to  pulpit  affiliation  with  Pedobaptists 
— that  is,  according  to  Crosby,  (Vol.  III.,  p.  4), 
which  seems  to  be  traditional. 

To  be  sure,  as  Dr.  Thomas  says,  Spilsbury  was 
an  anti-successionist,  and  so  perhaps  of  most  of  his 


William  Kiffin.  27 

church;  but  it  is  clear  that  Blunt,  Lucar  and  others 
of  the  "forenamed"  of  that  church  were  succts- 
sionists  and  joined  with  the  greater  secession  from 
Jessey's  church  in  the  restoration  of  immersion  in 
1640  41,  through  a  legitimate  administrator  secured 
by  Blunt  from  Holland.  Spilsbury,  while  not  bap- 
tized himself,  in  1638,  baptized  Sam  Eaton  and  oth- 
ers upon  his  anti-succession  theory,  that  "baptizcd- 
ness  is  not  essential  to  the  administrator;"  but  ac- 
cording to  Spilsbur}',  himself,  there  were  some  who 
"scrupled  the  correctness"  of  his  conduct.  This 
was  before  1640-1641,  when  Spilsbury's  baptism  was 
only  believers'  affusion;  but  it  is  evident  that  the 
dissatisfaction  of  some  as  to  his  right  of  adminis- 
tration was  at  the  bottom  of  the  restoration  move- 
ment in  1640,  which  secured  immersion  through  a 
successionist  administrator  in  1641.  It  is  likely 
that  such  men  of  his  flock  as  Blunt,  Lucar  and  oth- 
ers, were  the  objectors  who  soon  after,  are  found  in 
conference  and  prayer  with  some  of  Jessey's  church 
over  the  matter  of  baptism,  "that  it  ought  to  be  by 
dipping,"  and  how  to  "enjoy  it,"  through  a  proper 
administrator,  according-  to  the  Jessey  Records  or 
the  Kifiin  Manuscript.  I  also  infer  this  dissatisfac- 
tion and  agitation  as  g-rowing-  out  of  the  Spilsbury 
theory  and  practice  and  leading-  up  to  the  succes- 
sion movement,  from  Hutchinson's  "Treati^^e  Con- 
cerning- the  Covenant  and  Baptism,"  in  which  he 
says:  "The  great  objection  was  the  want  of  an  ad- 
ministrator, which,  as  I  have  heard,  was  removed 
by  sending-  certain  messengers  to  Holland,  whence 
they  were  supplied;"  and  Crosby  appeals  for  con- 
firmation of  Hutchinson's  declaration  to  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript,  which  more  fully  details  the  matter. 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  100-102).  The  movement  of  l()4ti-41, 
evidently  orisfinatcd  in  Spilsbury's  church  by  those 
"persons"  who  first  "scrupled  the  correctness"  of 
Spilsbury's  theory  and  practice  of  baptism  by  an 
unbaptized  administrator;  and  in  the  discussion  of 


28  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

the  proper  administrator,  the  proper  mode  of  bap- 
tism by  immersion  became  the  leading-  feature  of 
the  movement. 

It  is  also  true,  as  Dr.  Thomas  sug-g-ests,  that  Mr. 
Jessey,  who  joined  in  the  movement  of  164U-1641, 
upon  his  conviction  with  Blunt  and  the  rest,  that 
"baptism  oug-ht  to  be  by  dipping-,"  was  a  Pedobap- 
tist  and  was  not  immersed  until  1645;  but  this  does 
not  preclude  the  fact  that  he  took  part  in  the  agita- 
tion and  movement  which  restored  immersion  in 
1641;  and  what  is  claimed  of  him  by  Neal  as  having- 
laid  the  '■'■foundation''''  of  the  first  Baptist  cong-rega- 
tion  which  he  had  met  with  in  Eng-land,  may  only 
apply  to  the  secession  from  his  church  which  joined 
with  Blunt,  Lucar  and  the  rest  of  the  "forenamed" 
from  the  Spilsbury  church,  which  constituted  this 
first  immersion  or  Baptist  Church  in  England.  No 
doubt  the  larger  number  who  united  in  the  move- 
ment were  from  the  Jessey  church;  and  this  larger 
secession  from  Jessey  could  be  properly  called  the 
"foundation"  of  the  first  immersion  church — and  so 
ascribed  to  Jessey  by  preeminence  ou  account  of 
his  prominence  as  a  leader  with  Blunt  in  the  origi- 
nal ag-itation  which  led  to  the  movement  in  1641. 
Why  Jessey  did  not  end  up  with  the  movement  in 
1641,  is  singular;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that, 
thoug-h  he  finally  became  a  Baptist  in  practice, 
1645,  he  was  always  on  the  fence  of  the  mixed- 
church  order  of  Baptists,  and  he  may  be  said  to  be 
the  father  of  the  open  communion  idea  in  the  Bap- 
tist denomination.  While  he  was  convinced  with 
Blunt  and  the  rest  that  immersion  was  the  proper 
mode  of  baptism,  his  convictions  were  not  of  that 
uncompromising-  character  which  led  Blunt,  Lucar, 
Blacklock,  Kiffin  and  others  immediately,  upon  the 
adoption  of  Baptist  principles  to  enter  upon  Baptist 
practice;  and  while  Jessey  seems  to  have  g-otten  the 
credit  of  laying  the  "foundation"  of  the  first  im- 
mersion Baptist  Church  in  Eng-land,  it  was  Blunt 


William  Kiffin.  29 

who  deserves  the  honor,  and  of  whose  church,  in 
1646,  Edwards  in  his  Gang-raena,  speaks  as  "one  of 
the  fin  t  and  prime  churches  of  the  Anabaptists  in 
these  later  limes." 

Another  sing-ular  fact  is  that  Kiffin  seems  to  have 
remained  with  Jessey  until  1643-4,  when  he  with- 
drew from  his  church  on  account  of  the  controversy 
about  infant  baptism  by  which,  finally,  "Jessey  and 
the  g-reater  part  of  his  church  were  proselyted  to 
the  opinion  and  practice  of  the  Anti-pedobaptists" 
(Crosby,  Vol.  III.,  p.  4;  Gould,  "Open  Communion," 
p.  cxxx).  It  was  not  until  his  separation  from 
Spilsbury,  whenever  that  was,  that  we  discover 
Kiffin's  stricter  orthodoxy  as  a  close  communionist 
and  anti-affiliationist.  Even  then  he  did  not  l^reak 
with  Spilsbury  and  his  church  in  fellowship;  and 
perhaps  this  state  of  liberality  and  leniency  ex- 
plains why  Kiffin,  before  he  g-rew  into  stricter  views, 
remained  with  Jessey  down  to  1643.  Jessey  was 
not  only  a  Pedobaptist,  thoug^h  an  immersionist 
from  1641-2  to  1644-5,  but  as  a  professed  Baptist  from 
1645  onward,  he  retained,  all  his  life,  persons 
sprinkled  in  infancy  in  his  church  membership. 

Nevertheless,  at  this  period,  we  find  considerable 
correspondence  among-  the  Baptist  churches  of  Eng- 
land, which  shows  that  they  did  not  break  with  the 
Jessey  church.  In  fact,  it  seems  that  from  1641  to 
1645,  thoug-h  Jessey  had  not  abandoned  infant  bap- 
tism, nor  been  immersed  himself,  he  and  his  church 
were  reg-arded  as  Baptists — apparentl}-  in  transition. 
Even  after  1645  when  Jessey  had  followed  the  con- 
victions of  1641,  his  practice  as  a  Baptist  did  not 
differ  far  from  his  practice  as  a  Pedobaptist  between 
those  dates.  Crosby  seems  to  regard  Jesscy's  church 
as  Baptist  from  1641  onward,  when  (Vol.  III.,  p.  42) 
in  reply  to  Neal  he  says:  "Thus  it  appears,  there 
were  three  Baptist  Churches  in  England  which  Mr. 
Neal  met  with  before  /hai  of  Mr.  Jesscy's."'  But  for 
the  several    secessions    from    Jessey's   church   from 


30  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whilsitt  (Question. 

1641  to  1643,  it  might  be  inferred  that  the  Blunt 
movement  remained  with  Jessey,  as  Kiffin  did,  to 
1643;  but  with  the  "forenamed"  from  Spilsbury's 
church,  it  would  seem  that  the  secessions  from  Jes- 
sey formed  the  Blunt  church,  of  which  Edwards,  in 
Gang-raena  speaks  in  1646.  There  i&,  however, 
some  obscurity  on  this  point. 


CPIAPTER  IV. 


The  Kiffin  Manuscript. 


BEFORE  entering-  upon  the  discussion  of  this 
subject,  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  reader,  I 
will  here  give  the  several  documents  used  in  this 
discussion,  as  found  in  the  collection  of  17lu-ll  and 
sent  to  Dr.  Whitsitt  by  Geo.  Gould  as  transcribed 
as  follows: 

THE  JESSEY  CHURCH  RECORDS. 

There  having"  been  much  discussing-,  these  denying- 
Truth  of  ye  Parish  Churches,  &  ye  Church  become  now 
so  larg^e  yt  it  mig^ht  be  prejudicial,  these  following-  desired 
dismission  that  the3'  might  become  an  p]ntire  Church  .i 
further  ye  Communion  of  those  Churches  in  Order  among-st 
themselves,  wch  at  last  was  granted  to  them  .S:  performed 
Sept.  12,  1633,  viz:  Henry  Parker  &  Wife  Widd  Fearne.  .  .  . 
Hatmaker  Marke  Luker,  Mr.  Wilson  Mary  Wilson  Thos. 
Allen  Jo:  Milburn.  To  these  joyned  Rich.  Blunt,  Thos. 
Hubert,  Rich:  Tredwcll  &  his  wife  Kath:  John  Trimber, 
William  Jenning-s  &  Sam  Eaton,  Mary  Greenway,  Mr 
Eaton  with  some  others  receiving  a  further  baptism. 

Others  joyned  to  them. 

1638.  These  also  being  of  the  same  judgement  with  Sam 
Eaton  and  desiring^  to  depart  and  not  be  censured,  our  in- 
terest in  them  was  remitted  with  Prayer  made  in  their  be- 
halfe  June  8th  1638.  They  having  first  forsaken  I's  ».'v: 
joyned  with  Mr.  Spilsburv,  viz  Mr  Peter  Ferrer  Hen  Pen 
Tho:  Wilson  Wm  Batty  Mrs  Allen  (died  1639)  Mrs  Nor- 
wood. 


ORIGINAL  KIFFIN  MANUSCRIPT. 

1633.  Sundry  of  ye  Church  whereof  Mr  Jacob  and  Mr 
John  Eathrop  had  been  pastors,  being  dissatisfyed  with  ye 
Churches  owning-  of  English  Parishes,  to  the  true  Churches 
desired  dismission  I'v  joyned  tog-ether  among  tlicmselves,  as 
Mr  Henry  Parker,  Mr.  Tlui  Sliojiard.  Mr.  S;nii  Katon,  Marke 
Luker,  c^  others,  with  whom  joyned  Mr.  Wm  Kiffin. 

(31)' 


32  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

1638.  Mr  Thomas  Wilson,  Mr.  Pen,  &  H.  Pen,  &  3  more 
being'  convinced  that  Baptism  was  not  for  infants,  but  pro- 
fessed Believers  joyned  with  Mr  Jo  Spilsbury,  ye  Churches 
favor  being'  desired  therein. 

1640.  3d  Mo :  The  Church  became  two  by  mutual  consent 
just  half  being-  with  Mr.  P.  Barebone,  &  ye  other  half  e  with 
Mr  H  Jessey.  Mr  Richard  Blunt  with  him  being  convinced 
of  Baptism  yt  also  ought  to  be  by  dipping-  in  ye  Body  into 
ye  Water,  resembling-  Burial  &  rising-  again.  2  Col.  2.  12. 
Rom.  6.  4  had  sober  conference  about  in  ye  Church,  &  then 
with  some  of  the  forenamed  who  also  ware  so  convinced. 
And  after  Prayer  &  Conference  about  their  so  enjoying-  it, 
none  having  then  so  practiced  in  England  to  professed  believ- 
ers &  hearing  that  some  in  ye  Netherlands  had  so  practiced 
they  ag-reed  and  sent  over  Mr.  Rich.  Blunt  (who  understood 
Dutch)  with  letters  of  Commendation,  and  who  was  kindly 
accepted  there,  «&  returned  with  letters  from  them  Jo:  Batte 
a  Teacher  there  and  from  that^Church  to  such  as  sent  him. 

1641.  They  proceed  therein,  viz  Those  Persons  that  ware 
persuaded  that  Baptism  should  be  by  dipping-  ye  Body  had 
mett  in  two  Companies,  and  did  intend  to  meet  after  this, 
all  these  agreed  to  proceed  alike  togeather  And  then  Mani- 
festing (not  by  any  formal  Words  a  Covenant)  which  word 
was  scrupled  by  some  of  them,  but  by  mutual  desires  and 
agreement  each  testified : 

Those  two  Companyes  did  set  apart  one  to  Baptize  the 
rest;  &.  so  it  was  solemnly  performed  \>j  them. 

Mr  Blunt  baptized  Mr  Blacklock  yt  was  a  Teacher 
amongst  them  »&  Mr  Blunt  being  baptized,  he  &  Mr  Black- 
lock  Baptized  ye  rest  of  their  friends  that  ware  so  minded, 
&  many  being  added  to  them  they  increased  much. 

"The  names  of  all  11  Mo.  Janu:  begin  etc."  A  list  of 
forty-one  names,  to  which  twelve  were  added  January  9, 
making  fifty-three  in  all  as  follows:  «S:c. 

"1639.  Mr  Green  wth  Captn  Spencer  had  begun  a  Con- 
gregation in  Crutched  Frj'ars,  to  whom  Paul  Hobson  joyned 
who  was  now  with  many  of  that  Church  one  of  ye  seven." 

I  omit  here  the  1644  part  of  this  Manuscript  which 
mentions  the  union  of  the  seven  churches  which  is- 
sued the  Confession  of  Faith  in  that  year,  as  not 
bearing-  upon  the  subject  at  issue. 


SUBSTANCE  OF  THE  KIFFIN  MANUSCRIPT  AS 
USED  BY  CROSBY. 

There  was  a  congregation  of  Protestant  Dissenters  of  the 
independent   Persuasion  in  London,  gathered  in  the  year 


The  Kiffin  Manuscript.  33 

1616,  whereof  Mr.  Henry  Jacob  wa»  the  first  pastor;  and 
after  him  succeeded  Mr.  John  Lathrop,  who  was  their  min- 
ister at  this  time.  In  this  society  several  persons  finding- 
that  the  congreg-ations  kept  not  their  first  principles  of  sep- 
aration, and  being  also  convinced  that  baptism  was  not  to 
be  administered  to  infants,  but  such  only  as  professed  faith 
in  Christ,  desired  that  they  might  be  dismissed  from  that 
communion,  and  allowed  to  form  a  distinct  congregation  in 
such  order  as  was  most  agreeable  to  their  own  sentiments. 
The  church  considering  that  they  were  now  grown  very 
numerous,  and  so  more  than  could  in  these  times  of  perse- 
cution conveniently  meet  together,  and  believing  also  that 
those  persons  acted  from  a  principle  of  conscience,  and  not 
obstinacy,  agreed  to  allow  them  the  liberty  they  desired, 
and  that  they  should  be  constituted  a  distinct  church;  which 
was  performed  the  12th  of  September  1633.  And  as  they 
believed  that  baptism  was  not  rightly  administered  to  in- 
fants, so  the)'  looked  upon  the  baptism  they  had  received  in 
that  age  as  invalid:  whereupon  most  or  all  of  them  received 
a  new  baptism.  Their  minister  was  Mr.  John  Spilsbury. 
What  number  they  were  is  uncertain,  because  of  the  men- 
tioning of  the  names  of  about  twenty  men  and  women  it  is 
added,  with  divers  others. 

In  the  year  1638  Mr.  William  Kiffin,  Mr.  Thomas  Wilson, 
and  others  being  of  the  same  judgment,  were  upon  their 
request,  dismissed  to  the  said  Mr.  Spilsbury's  congrega- 
tion. 

In  the  year  1639  another  congregation  of  Baptists  was 
formed,  whose  place  of  meeting  was  in  Crutched-Fryars; 
the  chief  promoters  of  which  were  Mr.  Green,  Mr.  Paul 
Hobson  and  Captain  Spencer.  (Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  148-49.) 
For  in  the  year  1640  this  church  became  two  by  consent; 
just  half,  says  the  Manuscript,  being  with  Mr.  P.  Barebone, 
and  the  other  half  with  Mr.  Henry  Jessey.  (Crosbv,  Vol. 
III.,  p.  41.) 

Several  sober  and  pious  persons  belonging  to  the  congre- 
gations of  the  dissenters  about  London  were  convinced  that 
believers  were  the  only  proper  subjects  of  baptism  and  that 
it  ought  to  be  administered  by  immersion  or  dipping  the 
whole  body  into  the  water,  in  resemblance  of  a  burial  and 
resurrection,  according  to  Colos.  ii.  12  and  Rom.  vi.  4. 
That  they  often  met  together  to  pray  and  confer  about  this 
matter  and  to  consult  what  methods  they  should  take  to  en- 
joy this  ordinance  in  its  primitive  purity;  that  they  could 
not  be  satisfied  about  any  administrator  in  England,  to  be- 
gin this  practice;  because  tho'  some  in  this  nation  rejected 
the  baptistn  of  infants,  yet  t/iey  had  not  as  they  knew  of  re- 
vived the  ancient  custotn  of  immersion:  But,  hearing  thai 
some  in  the  Netherlands  practiced  it,  they  agreed  to  send 
3 


34  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  Uie  Whitailt  Question. 

over  one  Mr.  Richard  Blunt,  who  understood  the  Dutch  lan- 
guag-e;  That  he  went  accordingly,  carrying  letters  of  recom- 
mendation with  him,  and  was  kindly  received  both  by  the 
church  there  and  Mr.  John  Batten,  their  teacher. 

That,  upon  his  return,  he  baptized  Mr.  Samuel  Blacklock, 
a  minister,  and  these  two  baptized  the  rest  of  their  com- 
pany [whose  names  are  in  the  Manuscript  to  the  number  of 
fifty-three].     (Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  101-2.) 

Dr.  Thomas,  in  his  interpretation  of  the  Kifi&n 
Manuscript,  does  not  speak  dog^matically.  He  does 
not  pronounce  the  document  a  "forg-ery"  or  a 
"  fraud."  After  subjecting-  the  document,  as  a  law- 
yer, to  all  the  severest  tests  of  evidential  validity, 
according  to  the  strictest  demands  of  "  authenticity, 
pertinence,  clearness,  and  authoritativeness,"  appli- 
cable to  a  g-enuine  or  official  record  in  court,  he  claims 
only  a  "modified  conception  of  the  sig-nificance  of 
the  parag-raph  in  question,"  around  which  hangs 
the  controversy.  He  makes  no  "pretense  to  infal- 
libility, and  admits  that  his  conception  may  be  vul- 
nerable." While  he  thinks  that  Dr.  Whitsitt  is 
'■''certainly  not  right "  in  his  construction  of  the  doc- 
ument in  general,  and  of  the  main  paragraph  in  par- 
ticular, he  says  of  his  own  interpretation  that  it  is 
^hwt certainly  right.''''  He  concludes  (Art.  III. ,  p.  27): 
"Perhaps  no  safe  solution  has  been  reached  by  any- 
body, or  is  possible.  In  that  case  the  testimony  re- 
mains ambiguous  and  its  force  is  neutralized."  The 
criticism  of  Dr.  Thomas,  on  this  point,  is  the  most 
scholarly  and  generous,  from  an  adverse  standpoint, 
which  has  characterized  this  contention;  and  he 
well  says,  to  the  shame  of  many  others :  '  'It  would  be 
indecorous,  not  to  say  silly,  to  affect  to  treat  as  insig- 
nificant the  formidable  array  of  testimony  which 
has  convinced  so  discriminating  a  judge  as  Dr. 
Whitsitt,  to  say  nothing  of  the  later  concurrence  of 
careful  and  competent  investigators,  such  as  Profes- 
sors Neuman  and  Vedder."  Only  a  scholar  and 
a  gentleman  can  thus  judge. 

While  in  the  main  I  agree  with  Dr.  Thomas  as 


The  Kiffin  Manuscript.  35 

reg-ards  the  rig-id  principles  upon  which  he  subjects 
the  Kiffin  Manuscript  to  the  tests  of  documentary 
evidence,  essential  to  the  absolute  authenticity  of 
official  records,  yet  if  his  tests  were  severely  applied 
to  all  our  historical  testimony,  much  of  our  history 
— especially  Baptist  history — would  be  wanting-.  I 
do  not  agree  with  him,  however,  that  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript  is  devoid  of  official  test.  He  allows  the 
validity  of  even  '■''  oral  tradition'^''  (pp.  21,  22),  within 
the  hundred  years  limit  allowed  by  historical  critics, 
with  reg-ard  to  Crosby's  opinion  that  Smyth  and 
Helwisse  were  "restorers  of  immersion;"  and  yet 
he  would  deny  the  same  validity  to  the  Kiffin  Manu- 
script, which  is  a  written  document,  and  which  has 
a  far  better  foundation  in  fact  than  that  "  oral  tra- 
dition of  Smyth's  immersion,  which,  in  the  lig-ht  of 
later  historical  evidence,  has  proven  to  be  affusion. 
The  tradition  at  the  time  Crosby  wrote  was  so  un- 
satisfactory, in  the  absence  of  Smyth's  writing-s, 
that  he  (Crosby)  repudiated  Smyth's  baptism  and 
emphasized  the  fact  that  it  was  never  received  by 
the  Eng-lish  Baptists;  but  he  uses  the  Kiffin  Manu- 
script, with  perfect  reliance  upon  it  as  a  g-enuine 
document,  both  as  to  its  1633-1638  dates  and  as  to 
the  facts  which  belong-  to  the  1640-1641  dates. 
Much  of  his  history  of  the  Baptists  of  Eng-land  is 
referred  to  this  document  as  authoritative;  and  if 
Crosby's  opinion  is  to  be  taken  as  a  test  of  the  com- 
parative g-enuineness  of  the  "oral  tradition"  of 
Smyth's  immersion  and  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  then 
Dr.  Thomas'  criticism  against  the  latter  falls  to  the 
ground.  He  can  take  Crosby's  use  of  "oral  tradi- 
tion "  in  the  one  case  in  which  the  tradition  is  prac- 
tically repudiated,  but  he  cannot  take  Crosby's  use 
of  the  Kiffin  document  upon  which  he  (Crosby) 
placed  full  reliance! 

Dr.  Thomas  says  that  the  Kiffin  manuscript  ma  v  be 
reg-arded  as  a  "private  paper"  without  the  guarant}' 
of  a  "place  of  deposit;"  but  at  the  time  of  Crosby 


36  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

it  must  have  had  a  place  of  deposit  as  it  now  has, 
and  must  have  been  reg-arded  by  him  not  simply  as 
a  private  paper,  but  as  a  document  suf&cientjy  au- 
thenticated to  be  used  as  history,  and  so  of  those 
v^rho  followed  him  in  the  chronicles  of  the  Eng-lish 
Baptists.*  As  to  the  facts  which  belong-  to  the 
1640-1641  dates  found  in  the  Kifl&n  manuscript, 
Crosby  confirms  his  use  of  the  document  as  authori- 
tative by  the  parallel  use  of  Hutchinson  on  the 
same  subject  as  contemporary  support;  and  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  critics,  so  far  as  I  have  seen,  do  not  con- 
trovert Crosby's  use  of  Kiffin's  manuscript  as  to  the 
1633-1638  dates,  which  when  taken  tog-ether  with 
the  1640-1641  dates,  confirm  the  authority  of  the 
document  as  a  whole.  Dr.  Thomas  says  that  the 
KijB&n  manuscript  "describes  only  past  but  not  con- 
temporaneous events,"  which  robs  it  of  one  of  the 
elements  of  authenticity;  but  this  is  as  true  of  the 
1633-1638  part  as  of  the  1640-1641  part  of  the  docu- 
ment; and  if  it  should  be  invalidated  by  the  rule  of 
Dr.  Thomas,  we  should  not  only  be  robbed  of  the 
Jessey-Blunt  movement  of  1640-1641,  but  of  the 
Spilsbury  movement  1633-1638,  which  none  of 
the  critics  dispute.  Crosby  certainly  ignored  Dr. 
Thomas'  ruling-  and  endorsed  the  document  in  both 
its  parts,  confirming-  the  second  part  by  the  con- 
temporary authority  of  Hutchinson;  and  he  found 
the  document  as  a  whole  in  the  collection  of  1712, 
which  gave  it  at  least  a  quasi  "place  of  deposit.'* 
More  than  this,  Kifi&n  must  have  been  contemporary 
with  the  collector,  Mr.  Stinton,  some  time  in  life. 
The  Kifiin  manuscript  is  g-ood  probable  evidence; 
and  if   Dr.   Thomas'  rule  was   applied   to   all   our 


*The  Kiffin  manuscript  evidently  belonged  to  the  collection  called: 
"A  Repository  of  Divers  Historical  Matters  relating  to  the  English  Anti- 
Pedobaptists.  Collected  from  Original  Papers  or  Faithful  Extracts. 
Anno  1712."  The  collector  of  the  greater  part  of  the  materials  from 
which  Crosby  wrote  his  history  was  Mr.  Benjamin  Stinton  (Crosby, 
Vol.  I,  page  i,  Preface) ;  and  it  is  probable  that  he  received  the  Jessey 
Records  from  Mr.  Adams  when  he  began  to  make  his  collection  in  1710-11. 
Stinton  who  intended  to  write  the  first  Baptist  history,  was  evidently 
the  collector  of  the  entire  "Repositorj-"  mentioned  above. 


The  Kiffin  Manuscript.  37 

documentary  evidence,  from  this  standpoint,  it 
would  destroy  most  of  the  probable  testimony  by 
which  much  of  our  received  historical  data  is  au- 
thoritatively established. 

Again,  Dr.  Thomas  says  that  the  "vital  sentence" 
in  the  Kiffin  manuscript  "records  no  corporate  fact" 
legitimate  to  official  notice — that  it  expresses  only 
a  sweeping  opiu/o/i,  reducing  itself  thereby  from  an 
official  to  a  personal  and  seemingly  irrelevant  utter- 
ance." He  refers  to  the  sentence:  "None  having 
then  so  practiced  in  England  to  professed  believers" 
— a  declaration  based  upon  the  conviction  of  Blunt 
and  others  that  "baptism  ought  to  be  by  dipping," 
without  the  ability  of  "enjoying  it,"  except  by 
sending  to  Holland  for  it,  because  there  was  no 
such  practice  to  professed  believers  in  England. 
This  sentence  does  record  a  "corporate  fact  legiti- 
mate to  official  notice,"  not  an  irrelevant  personal 
opinion;  and  this  corporate  fact  expresses  the  reason 
why  another  fact  depended  upon  a  possible  con- 
dition by  a  logical  and  relevant  connection  of  the 
vital  sentence  with  what  precedes  and  follows  it. 
If  the  vital  sentence  is  a  sweeping  personal  opinion, 
a  seemingly  irrelevant  utterance — then  the  whole 
document  falls  under  the  same  criticism;  for  that 
sentence  is  inseparably  imbedded  in  the  document, 
showing  the  rea?on  why  those  concerned  could  not 
enjoy  baptism  by  dipping  in  England,  and  how,  in 
order  to  enjoy  it,  they  would  have  to  send  to  Hol- 
land for  the  ordinance. 

Crosby's  paraphrase  of  the  vital  sentence  which 
he  makes  to  read  thus:  "They  had  not  as  t]ic\  kticzv 
of  revived  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion," 
may  have  suggested  to  Dr.  Thomas,  this  con- 
struction of  the  vital  sentence;  but  for  whatever 
purpose  Crosby  saw  fit  to  paraphrase  that  utterance 
of  the  Kiffin  manuscript,  he  positively  asserts  that, 
prior  to  the  Blunt  movement,  immersion  "had  for 
some  time  been  disused"  in  England,  {\o\  I.,  p.  '>7). 


4471331 


38  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  TJiomns  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

He  makes  this  fact  the  basis  of  the  movement  of 
the  'Baptists"  for  the  restoration  of  immersion  in 
Kng-land;  he  repudiates,  whatever  he  may  have  be- 
lieved upon  "oral  tradition,"  the  baptism  of  Smyth 
as  never  having-  succeeded  to  the  Eng-lish  Bap- 
tists; and  he  neither  by  "tradition,"  nor  "church 
records,"  an3'where  says  thatSpilsbury's  church  im- 
mersed from  1633  onward.  In  his  very  paraphrase 
of  the  main  paragraph  of  the  Kiffin  manuscript  he 
concedes  the  fact  that  the  Anti-Pedobaptists  of 
England,  so  far  as  known,  did  not  practice  im- 
mersion. He  makes  Kiffin  say:  ^'' Because^  tho'  some 
in  this  nation  rejected  the  baptism  of  infants,  yet  they 
{Blunt  and  his  party)  had  not  as  they  knew  of,  re- 
vived the  ancient  custom  of  immersion.''''  Blunt, 
Kiflfin,  Blacklock,  Lucar,  knew,  at  least,  the  Bap- 
tists who  "rejected  infant  baptism"  in  and  about 
London;  and  hence,  according  to  Crosby's  version 
of  Kiffin,  they  did  not  practice  immersion,  though 
they  rejected  infant  baptism.  In  fact,  from  the 
Kiffin  manuscript  and  other  documents  Crosby  drew 
his  own  conclusion  that  "for  some  time  immersion 
had  been  disused"  in  England ;  and  his  paraphrase  of 
the  main  paragraph  of  the  Kiffin  manuscript  does 
not  alter  its  meaning  which  is  expressed  in  the 
words:  ^''None  having  then  so  practiced  in  England 
to  professed  believers.'''' 

Hence  Crosby's  paraphrase  of  the  vital  sentence 
in  Kiffin's  manuscript  means  nothing  in  the  light  of 
his  own  recorded  facts  in  the  case;  and  hence 
Kiffin's  manuscript  which  Crosby  adopts  without 
variation  in  any  other  regard  must  be  true  in  regard 
to  the  vital  sentence,  and  so  of  the  date  1641,  which 
is  implied  in  the  1640  date  which  Crosby  uses. 
Crosby  did  not,  as  Dr.  Thomas  does,  treat  this 
document  as  a  "flying  leaf,"  and  nobody  else  has 
ever  so  treated  it  until  the  present  controversy. 
The  collection  of  records  and  manuscripts,  1712, 
whether  or  not  in  the  nature  of    "private   memo- 


The  Kiffi.li  Manuscript.  39 

randa," — with  "unknown  dates"  and  by  "unknown 
hands,"  in  some  instances — must  have  been  suffi- 
ciently authenticated  by  evidence,  internal  or  ex- 
ternal, to  have  been  used  by  so  cautious  a  historian 
as  Crosby,  and  the  only  way  to  destroy  the  validity 
of  such  documents,  at  this  time,  is  to  contradict 
them  by  facts  which  were  not  in  Crosby's  possession. 
Such  eminent  authority  as  Dr.  Newman  says  of 
these  papers:  "These  documents  are  all  thoroughly 
consistent  with  each  other  and  with  what  is  other- 
wise known  of  the  history  of  the  times  in  g-eneral, 
and  of  the  Congregational  and  Baptist  histor}'  in  par- 
ticular. We  can  conceive  of  no  motive  for  the 
forgery  of  such  documents,  and  those  ascribed  to 
Jessey  and  that  not  ascribed  were  old  papers  in  1710. 
I  think  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  much  historical 
material  on  which  we  could  rely  more  implicitly." 
He  says  that  while  the  Kiffin  manuscript,  and  the 
Jessey  records  "differ  in  some  details,  they  agree  in 
substance  and  thoroughly  confirm  each  other." 
Hence,  the  positive  proof  by  which  Dr.  Thomas 
claims  to '  'dismiss  the  Jessey  Records  from  the  case," 
and  the  slighting  comment  of  Dr.  Dexter  with  ref- 
erence to  the  Kiffin  manuscript,  are  at  least  offset 
by  the  confident  vindication  of  these  documents 
from  the  charge  of  invalidity,  or  inconsistency,  by 
Dr.  Newman,  an  unpartizan  and  thoroughly  com- 
petent investigator. 

The  claim  of  Dr.  Thomas  that  the  Kiffin  manu- 
script by  reason  of  "equivocal  language,"  has  con- 
fused and  misled  intelligent  investigators  before, 
applies  with  equal  force  to  hundreds  of  authen- 
ticated documents  in  history;  and  Neal  and  Ivimey 
differ  from  Crosby  and  v.'ith  each  other  upon  docu- 
mentary evidence  considered  reliable.  Dr.  Whitsitt, 
it  is  claimed,  charges  the  document  with  bluodering; 
but  this  charge  applies  only  to  minor  particulars 
which  areunsustained  by  the  Jessey  Kecordsand  the 
history  of  the  times.     Neither  the  main  paragraph 


40  Review  of  Dr.  J,  B.  Thomas  on  ihe  Whitsitt  Question. 

of  the  document,  nor  the  document  as  a  whole,  is 
aifected  by  these  minor  defects,  which  are  not  per- 
tinent to  the  matters  at  issue.  Besides,  if  every  his- 
torical document  should  be  thus  judg-ed  on  account 
of  minor  blunders  not  involving  the  main  subject- 
matter,  there  would  be  but  little  historical  evidence 
of  any  value.  Dr.  Thomas  does  not  claim,  how- 
ever, that  this  objection  wholly  destroys  the  Kiffin 
manuscript,  even  though  it  be  without  Kif(in"s  sig^- 
nature  and  from  no  place  of  deposit;  but  he  claims 
that  it  is  a  "flying-  leaf,"  seriously  impaired  in  its 
value  as  evidence.  In  the  light  of  supplementary 
history — especially  that  of  Hutchinson  and  of  the 
Bampfield  Document — we  see  that  Dr.  Thomas  is 
wrong"  in  this  assumption  also.  His  charge  that 
the  fifty-three  persons  reported  by  Crosby  as  at- 
tached to  the  Kif&n  manuscript,  "are  not  affixed  to 
it  as  attesting  it,"  but  is  only  an  "embodied  list," 
may  be  technically  true;  but  that  list,  in  Crosby's 
mind,  stood,  with  other  data  before  him,  in  the 
nature  of  a  historic  attestation,  and  it  adds  im- 
measurably to  the  authenticity  of  the  manuscript 
from  an  incidental  standpoint. 

The  argument  (ab  ignorantia)  employed  by  Dr. 
Thomas  does  not  touch  the  Kif&n  Manuscript.  If 
the  main  paragraph,  by  the  statement  '^none"'  had 
'''' then''''  so  "practiced  (immersion)  to  professed  be- 
lievers in  England,"  is  the  expression  of  a  negative 
opinion — fairly  paraphrased  by  the  words  of  Crosby 
that  none  had  been  so  baptized,  "as  they  kue-jj  of  " 
— the  document  still  stands  unassailable  until  it  is 
proved  that  that  paragraph,  as  a  negative  opinion, 
is  false.  I  deny,  however,  that  it  is  a  negative 
opinion,  or  the  negative  expression  of  "impersonal 
ignorance,"  as  sought  to  be  shown  by  Crosby's  sup- 
posed paraphrase;  and  I  maintain  that  the  para- 
graph belongs  to  Kiffin,  the  author  of  the  Manu- 
script, as  expressive  of  a  fact  maintained  by  Blunt 
and  others,    and   as  declared   by  Crosby   and   the 


The  Kiffin.  Manuscript.  41 

Bampfield  Document — namely,  that  up  to  that  time 
in  Eng-land,  immersion  had  for  '''' so7}ie  twie^'"  or 
" /(9WO","  been  ^'-  disused;''''  had  suffered  a  "general 
corruption,"  if  not  a  "universal  corruption,"  as 
Tombes,  quoted  by  Crosby,  clearly  intimates.  The 
negative  form  in  which  the  main  paragraph  is  put 
implies  a  positive  affirmation  of  the  fact  that  im- 
mersion as  believers'  baptism  was  lost  in  England, 
confirmed  by  Crosby  himself  and  by  other  writers 
whom  he  quotes. 

The  circumstantial  argument  of  Dr.  Thomas,  with 
reference  to  "lack  of  publicity,"  by  which,  accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Featley,  the  Anabaptists  of  Southwark 
and  other  places  may  have  immersed  unknown  to 
the  Jessey  Church  people  before  1641,  cannot  apply, 
for  the  reason  shown  heretofore,  that  such  men  as 
Blunt,  Lucar  and  others  who  had^  or  still  belonged 
to  the  Southwark  Church  must  have  known  that 
that  church,  at  least,  did  not  immerse;  and  as  intel- 
ligent and  well-informed  men,  they  must  have 
known  that  the  other  Anabaptists  in  and  about 
London  did  not  immerse.  Otherwise  they  would 
not  have  acted  upon  the  affirmation  of  the  fact  set 
forth  in  the  main  paragraph  of  the  Kiffin  Manu- 
script. 


CHAPTER  V. 


The  Kiffin  Manuscript  (Continued). 


DR.  THOMAS  (p.  19),  after  having-  reviewed  the 
main  paragraph  of  the  Kif&n  Manuscript,  ac- 
cording- to  Dr.  Whitsitt's  construction  of  it,  proceeds 
to  sug-g-est  other  reasons  for  hesitating-  to  accept 
such  construction  in  the  lig-ht  of  extraneous  circum- 
stances— such  as  omissions,  ambiguities,  and  incon- 
sistencies, which,  if  they  do  not  weaken  our  faith  in 
the  writer,  "forbid  their  arbitrary  and  forced  con- 
struction in  the  interest  of  a  theory." 

1.  He  assumes,  with  Neal,  that  the  partition  of 
the  Jacob  Church  between  Barebone  and  Jessey  did 
not  g-row  out  of  a  controversy  over  baptism,  but 
from  the  dang-er  of  discovery  by  the  authorities. 
There  was  little  dang-er  in  1640-41  of  such  interfer- 
ence. This  was  true  in  part,  as  expressed  of  the 
division  which  took  place  in  1633,  v^rhich,  perhaps, 
Neal  confounds,  in  this  respect,  with  the  division 
of  1640;  but  the  evidence  drawn  from  the  Kif&n 
Manuscript,  confirmed  by  Hutchinson  and  Crosby,  if 
not  the  Bampfield  Document,  is  clear  that  the  divi- 
sion occurred  upon  the  controversy  which  grew  out 
of  the  baptismal  question. 

2.  Dr.  Thomas  assumes  that  the  expression  '■'"with 
him "  in  the  manuscript  is  ambiguous,  and  applies 
as  much  to  Barebone  as  to  Jessey;  but  Kiffin  men- 
tions Jessey  after  Barebone,  and  Blunt's  ag-reeing 
"with  him"  in  such  order  as  that,  grammatically 
and  naturally,  we  may  infer  that  the  phrase  "with 
him"  refers  to  Jessey,  and  not  Barebone.  More 
properly  speaking,  perhaps,  '"'' zvith  him''''  is  a  tech- 
nical phrase,  and  means  "of  his  church" — that  is, 
"Mr.  Richard  Blunt  and  others  with  him  (Jessey) 

(42) 


The  Kiffin  Manuscript. — Continued.  43 

(of  Mr.  Jessey's  Church)  being  convinced  of  bap- 
tism, etc." 

3.  Dr.  Thomas  claims  that  Richard  Blunt's  seces- 
sion from  the  Jessey  Church,  1633,  according  to  the 
Jessey  Records,  and  his  connection  with  it.  1640, 
according-  to  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  puts  the  two 
documents  in  conflict,  which  requires  explanation  or 
the  discrediting  of  one  of  them,  that  is,  if  we  sup- 
pose the  two  paragraphs  to  be  part  of  the  same  doc- 
ument. This  is  not  necessarily  a  discrepancy,  since 
Blunt  could  have  returned  to  the  Jessey  Church  after 
his  secession  from  it,  1633;  or  else,  like  Mark  Lucar, 
who  seceded  with  him,  1633,  and  was  still  with  the 
secession,  or  with  Spilsbury,  as  others  of  the  "fore- 
named"  in  the  movement  with  Blunt,  so  he  (Blunt) 
may  have  still  been  with  Spilsbury,  and  yet  have 
joined  in  the  conference  with  Jessey,  which  is  most 
likely. 

4.  Dr.  Thomas  claims  that  the  "  pivotal  sentence" 
is  affected  with  a  "verbal  ambiguity"  upon  the 
ground  that  the  word  "  then  "  points  to  a  "  specific 
date,"  but  is  beclouded  in  its  application  to  that 
date  by  the  use  of  the  "  past  participle  "  (having), 
so  that  you  cannot  tell  whether  it  means  "at  that 
time  "or  "  up  to  that  time."  The  word  "so,"  he 
says,  is  also  entangled  by  the  curious  qualification 
"to  professed  believers;"  and  he  asks:  "What  is 
the  force  of  this  unique  limitation?"  It  is  clear 
that  the  manuscript  naturally  means  by  the  phrase, 
"none  having  ///r;/ so  practiced  in  England,"  "up 
to  that  time,"  and  by  consequence,  "at  that  time," 
as  Crosby,  Bampfield,  and  others  show  by  the  long 
''''disuse''''  of  immersion  in  England;  and  the  limita- 
tion to  "  professed  believers"  is  not  expressed  by 
"  so  "  which  refers  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  "  then  " 
and  "  up  to  that  time"  in  "disuse,"  but  by  the  fart 
that  immersion  had  not  "then,"  or  "up  to  that 
time,"  been  '"'practiced''^  in  England  to  "  believers," 
or  "professed  believers,"  since  its  "disuse." 


44  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsilt  Question. 

5.  Dr.  Thomas  assumes  that  the  1640  paragraph 
of  the  Jessey  Records,  as  Dr.  Whitsitt  classifies  the 
document,  transferred  to  its  place  in  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript  by  its  side,  would  give  the  expression, 
'''' forename d^  different  antecedents  from  those  as- 
signed by  Dr.  Whitsitt,  who  holds  that  "  some  of 
the  forenamed  "  mentioned  in  the  Jessey  Records, 
refers  to  members  in  Spilsbury's  Church.  If  Dr. 
Thomas  had  not  left  off  the  qualifying  term  "scw^," 
he  would  have  seen  that  the  application  might  be 
the  same  in  both  documents — excepting  the  name  of 
William  Kif&n,  copied  by  mistake  in  the  1638  seces- 
sion from  the  Jacob  Church  to  Spilsbury's,  and  also 
by  mistake  in  the  restored  document  which  puts 
Kif&n  with  the  secession  of  1633.  The  KiflSn  Manu- 
script, as  substantially  used  by  Crosby,  shows  that 
"  several  sober  and  pious  persons  belonging  to  the 
congregations  of  the  dissenters  about  London  were 
convinced  that  believers  were  the  only  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  administered 
by  i^mnersion ;  "  and  this  declaration  is  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  parallel  utterance  of  the  original 
document,  which  implies  that  the  "  forenamed"  of 
Spilsbury's,  or  the  1633,  church  were  convinced  with 
those  of  Jessey's  church  that  baptism  "ought  to  be 
by  dipping."  The  "sober  and  pious  persons,"  ac- 
cording to  the  later  manuscript,  who  joined  in  the 
movement  were  from  more  than  one  church,  as  seen 
by  the  plural  use  of  "congregations;"  and  unless 
the  "  forenamed  "  in  the  original  document  refer  to 
Barebone's  division  of  the  Jacob  church,  which  is 
impossible,  the  expression  must  refer  to  "  some  "  of 
those  named  beforehand  in  the  1633-'38  church, 
which  is  probable,  and  which  is  consistent  with  the 
natural  and  inseparable  connection  of  the  1633-1638 
with  the  1640-1641  parts  of  the  original  document 
as  a  whole.  There  is  certainly  no  evidence  here 
that  the  writer  of  this  document  was  either  careless 
or  unskilled  in  the  construction  of  his  sentences,  or 


The  Kiffin  Manuscript. — Continued.  46 

so  imperfectly  informed  as  to  forbid,  in  the  lig-ht  of 
the  later  version  of  the  orig-inal,  the  hang-ing-  of  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  issue  "on  the  turning-  of  his  phrases." 

Finally,  Dr.  Thomas  proceeds  further  to  destroy, 
if  possible,  confidence  in  Dr.  Whitsitt's  interpreta- 
tion of  the  main  paragraph  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript 
under  several  leading-  heads,  some  of  which  I  have 
already  considered  under  the  captions  of  "Crosby's 
Account"  and  "William  Kiffin,"  and  which  I  here 
pass  over.  On  pag-e  23,  Dr.  Thomas  assumes  that 
the  prime  question  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  was  a 
lawful  administrator.  I  g-rant  that  the  agitation  of 
1640  beg-an  back  of  that  date  upon  the  question  of 
an  "administrator;"  but  in  the  ag-itation  the  mode 
of  baptism  became  the  prime  question  and  the  ad- 
ministrator a  subordinate  question,  until  the  mode 
was  settled  according-  to  the  convictions  of  Blunt 
and  those  with  him  in  the  conferences  which  led  to 
the  conclusion  that  baptism  "  oug-ht  to  be  by  dip- 
ping-" and  practiced  to  "  believers  only."  This  is 
a  fact,  according-  to  both  the  orig^inal  and  the  later 
documents.  "  The  g-reat  objection,"  as  Hutchinson 
says,  "was  the  want  of  an  administrator,"  which 
[when  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism  were  set- 
tled] "was  removed  by  sending  certain  messengers 
to  Holland,  whence  they  were  supplied" — simply 
because  of  the  disuse  of  immersion  in  Eng-land.  The 
usual  assumption  that  the  Helwisse  and  Spilsbury 
churches  were  immersing-,  at  the  time — and  that 
those  of  the  Blunt  movement  did  not  regard  their 
administration  of  baptism  as  legitimate,  and  for 
that  reason  did  not  apply  to  them  for  the  rite — is 
wholly  disproven  by  the  facts  revealed  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Eng-lish  Baptists  by  Hutchinson,  Crosby, 
Bampfield,  and  other  writers  of  the  time.  More- 
over, this  assumption  is  in  contlict  with  the  posi- 
tion of  Dr.  Thomas  himself,  by  which  he  tries  to 
show  that  Blunt  and  those  concerned  in  tlic  move- 
ment of  1640,  while  they  might  have  had  the  nega- 


46  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B,  Tliomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

tive  opinion,  in  their  ig^norance,  that  there  were 
"none"  who  were  then  practicing-  immersion  in 
England,  they  might  have  been  mistaken!  The 
"perplexing  sentence"  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  is 
not,  therefore,  "wholly  irrelevant,"  if  not  explained 
by  the  motive  in  sending  to  Holland  for  an  admin- 
istrator as  the  chief  point  of  the  document.  All  the 
facts  g-o  to  show  that  the  mode  and  subjects  of  bap- 
tism became  the  prime  question,  and  that  "legiti- 
macy," though  first  sprung  in  1638,  became  subordi- 
nate in  1640  -'41,  when  immersion  was  discovered  as 
lost  and  restored  as  scriptural.  Possibly  there  were 
some  who  had  been  immersed  in  infancy,  or  who  so 
practiced  to  infants;  but,  according  to  the  Kifl&n 
Manuscript,  there  were  "wo«^"  who  so  practiced 
in  England  to  "professed  believers."  This  fact 
coupled  with  the  desire  for  legitimacy,  was  the 
motive  for  sending-  Blunt  to  Holland  for  immersion. 
The  "professed  believers"  argument  of  Dr. 
Thomas  (p.  24)  is  wholly  imaginary  and  out  of  the 
question.  There  is  nothing  in  the  original  manu- 
script which  leads  us  to  distinguish  between  "be- 
lievers" and  "professed  believers"  to  whom  im- 
mersion should  be  administered;  and  the  later  docu- 
ment settles  the  question  against  Dr.  Thomas.  It 
shows  that  the  "sober  and  pious  persons  belonging 
to  the  congregations  of  the  dissenters  about  London  " 
who  engaged  in  the  movement  for  the  restoration  of 
immersion  in  England,  were  simply  "convinced  that 
believers  were  the  only  proper  subjects  of  baptism 
and  that  it  ought  to  be  administered  by  immersion." 
The  two  documents,  therefore,  agree  that  "  pro- 
fessed believers "  and  "believers,"  respectively  men- 
tioned, are  the  same  persons  entitled  to  baptism 
which  "ought  to  be  by  dipping-" — "ought  to  be 
administered  by  immersion;"  and  the  object  of  the 
conferences,  in  both  accounts,  was  about  "their 
enjoying  it  " — "what  methods  they  should  take  to 
enjoy  the  ordinance  in  its  primitive  purity."     It  was 


The  Kiffin  Manuscriid. — Continued.  47 

not  a  Pedobaptist  movement  confined  to  a  Pedo 
baptist  church  in  which  "The  old  sore  question  of 
Anabaptism"  was  the  issue.  It  was  an  Anabaptist 
movement  ag^ainst  infant  baptism  and  in  favor  of 
restoring-  immersion  as  believers'  baptism  which 
was  lost;  and  it  involved  no  distinction  of  "be- 
lievers" from  "  professed  believers,"  by  which  Dr. 
Thomas,  after  trying-  to  discredit  the  pertinency  of 
the  main  paragraph  of  the  Kiflfin  Manuscript  as  any 
sort  of  valid  testimony,  g-ives  it  a  specific  Pedo- 
baptist application!  The  issue  upon  which  that 
movement  was  based  was  simply  this  and  nothing- 
more:  Baptism  "ought  to  be  by  dipping"  and  ad- 
ministered to  believers  only;  as  such  the  Scriptural 
mode  and  practice  in  England  have  been  lost;  and 
in  order  to  restore  the  same  it  must  be  sent  for  to 
Holland. 

In  the  sixth  and  last  objection,  Dr.  Thomas  (p.  26) 
claims  that  "This  record  instead  of  assuming  to 
give  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  immersing 
Baptist  churches  from  the  Jessey  Church,  in  1641, 
seems  rather  to  imply  a  contrary  conception."  Now 
if  anything  seems  clear  from  these  records,  it  is 
that  the  "two  companies,"  under  the  leadership  of 
Blunt  and  Blacklock,  which  "met"  together  in 
order  to  receive  immersion,  and  which  "did  intend 
to  meet  after  this,"  (not  by  formal  Covenant  at 
which  some  scrupled,  but  by  mutual  agreement), 
constituted  a  church  to  which  "  many  were  added" 
and  which  "increased  much."  This  was  the  intro- 
duction of  the  succession  movement  and  "  method  " 
by  which  the  "  English  Baptists,"  as  Crosby  aflirms, 
restored  immersion;  and  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  and 
Neal  agree  that  this  movement  and  method  ended 
with  1641.  The  "foundation"  of  the  movement  was 
laid  in  the  Jessey  Church  since  Jessey  agreed  with 
Blunt  and  other  Baptists  in  conviction  and  joined 
with  them  in  Conference,  which  led  to  the  result — and 
since  the  largrest  secession  which  constituted   this 


48  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsiti  Question. 

first  immersion  cong-reg-ation  in  Eng-land  withdrew 
from  the  Jessey  Church,  especially,  according-  to 
Crosby,  in  1641.  Hence,  according  to  Dr.  Whitsitt 
the  records  assume  correctly  to  give  an  account  of 
the  origin  of  immersing  Baptist  churches  from  the 
Jessey  Church  in  1641. 

It  does  not  help  Dr.  Thomas  whether  Spilsbury 
was  ever  connected  with  the  Jessey  church  or  not; 
nor  that  the  "Churches  in  Order,"  with  which  the 
secedersof  1633  desired  affiliation,  did  not  originate 
from  it.  Grant  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  Spils- 
bury's  church  and  the  "Churches  in  Order"  already 
existed  in  1633,  and  that  they  were  Anti-Pedobaptist 
churches,  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  im- 
mersionists.  As  I  have  already  shown,  in  the  light 
of  the  Blunt  movement,  they  could  not  have  been 
immersionists  without  Blunt  and  his  party  knowing 
it;  and  the  suggestion  of  Dr.  Thomas  "that  the 
Spilsbury  church,  at  least,  was  immersion  ist  by  the 
fact  that  it  was  after  conference  with  some  of  them 
(probably)  that  Blunt  and  his  comrades  insisted  on 
immersion,"  is  wholly  untenable  from  the  fact  that 
Blunt  was  already  an  Anti-Pedobaptist  of  the  seces- 
sion of  1633,  and  was  probably  a  member  of  Spils- 
bury's  church,  or  of  the  secession  of  1633.  He  was 
among-  the  number  "receiving  a  further"  or  a  "new 
baptism"  in  1633,  which  Dr.  Thomas  would  claim, 
no  doubt,  as  immersion;  and  if  this  were  true,  then 
Blunt  would  not  have  been  found  in  the  movement 
of  1640,  with  the  new  conviction  that  baptism 
"ought  to  be  by  dipping,"  that  as  such  it  was  lost 
in  England,  and  accepting-  the  deputation  to  Hol- 
land for  its  restoration. 

Dr.  Thomas  thus  concludes:  "We  are  brought 
back  by  reasonable  inference  from  the  lang-uage  of 
the  document  to  precise  accord  with  the  positive  ac- 
count of  the  matter  g-iven  by  Crosby,  affirming  the 
long  prior  use  of  immersion."  This  shady  docu- 
ment— this  equivocal,  ambiguous,  inconsistent  "fly- 


The  Kiffin  Manuscript. — Continued.  49 

ing"  leaf" — is  in  "precise  accord"  with  Crosby's  af- 
firmation of  the  "long-prior  use  of  immersion"  in 
Eng-land!  I  ag-ree  with  Dr.  Thomas  with  this  dif- 
ference only,  that  Crosby  positively  affirms  (Vol.  I., 
p.  97)  that  immersion  in  England,  prior  to  the 
Blunt  movement,  '''■had  fo?'  some  time  been  disused;'''' 
and  I  challenge  Dr.  Thomas  for  the  proof  to  the 
contrary.  Crosby  is  exactly  to  the  reverse  of  Dr. 
Thomas;  but  Crosby  and  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  as 
Dr.  Thomas  says,  are  in  "precise  accord"  with  each 
other — but  not  as  to  the  long  prior  use,  but  disuse, 
of  baptism  in  England.  The  main  paragraph  of  the 
Kiffin  Manuscript,  as  confirmed  by  Crosby,  abso- 
lutely forbids  the  existence  of  immersion  as  be- 
lievers' baptism  in  England  "/br  some  time"''  prior 
to  1640-41. 

There  is  no  use  tinkering  with  the  Kiffin  Docu- 
ment. The  only  way  to  escape  its  force  is  to  prove 
it  a  forgery.  This  a  scholar  and  a  church  historian 
like  Dr.  Thomas  would  not  attempt  to  do.  In  the 
light  of  Hutchinson,  Crosby,  Evans,  Gould  and  other 
English  writers,  fraud  can  never  be  charged  to  this 
and  similar  documents;  and  Dr.  Thomas,  with  the 
acumen  of  the  lawyer,  has  picked  for  flaws  without 
success.  In  fact,  while  Dr.  Thomas  blows  "cold," 
he  blows  "hot,"  finally,  on  the  document,  and  tries 
to  turn  it  into  a  fine  piece  of  testimony  in  favor  of 
his  own  theory. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


Sum  of  the:  Crosby  Argument. 


TN  FURTHER  reply  to  Dr.  Thomas  against  the 
1  assumption  that  the  Kif&n  Manuscript  leads  by 
"reasonable  inference"  to  "'precise  accord"  with 
the  positive  statement  of  Crosby  afl&rming-  the  long-- 
prior  use  of  immersion  in  England,  I  offer  the  fol- 
lowing arguments  which  I  regard  as  unanswerable: 

1.  According  to  Crosby  (Vol.  1.,  p.  96),  there 
was,  at  a  given  time,  an  agitation  among  some  of 
the  "  English  Protestants,"  whom  in  the  margin 
of  page  97,  he  calls  "  English  Baptists,"  on  the  sub- 
ject of  '■''  reviving  the  ancient  practice  of  irnniersion^'''' 
and  this  statement  is  based  upon  the  Hutchinson 
account  and  the  Kiffi.n  Manuscript,  which  relate 
that  some  of  the  pious  dissenters  of  the  congrega- 
tions about  London  [Blunt  and  those  with  him] 
concluded  that  ''believers  were  the  only  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism,"  and  that  baptism  "ought  to  be 
by  dipping,"  "administered  by  immersion."  (I., 
pp.  100-102.) 

2.  Up  to  this  time,  according  to  Crosby,  "  immer- 
sion" in  England  ''had  for  some  time  been  disused'''' 
(I.,  p.  97);  and  this  statement  is  in  "precise  ac- 
cord" also  with  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  which  says: 
"None  having  then  so  practiced  in  England  to  pro- 
fessed believers."  This  statement  is  also  confirmed 
by  the  Bampfield  Document,  which  says  of  the  prac- 
tice of  immersion  in  England,  at  this  time,  that  it 
"had  so  long  been  disused  that  there  were  none  who 
had  been  so  baptized  to  be  found."  (Review  of  the 
Question,  p.  232. )  Even  in  the  Church  of  England, 
according  to  Crosby  (II.;  p.  xlvi..  Preface),  the 
practice  of  immersion,  though  defended  by  some, 

(50) 


Sum  of  the  Crosby  Argument.  51 

practically  ended  with  the  close  of  the  16th  cen- 
tury, or  with  the  introduction  of  the  reig-n  of  James 
I-  Already,  in  1570,  the  Catechism  of  Noel,  of  sole 
authority  in  the  Church  of  England  at  that  time, 
prescribed  sprinkling-  as  indifferent  with  immersion 
for  baptism.  (Latin  Collection  by  A.  Howell,  p. 
207.  Parker  Publication  Society.)  As  far  back  as 
1528  Tyndale  complained  of  the  people  on  account 
of  their  preference  for  immersion  over  sprinkling-  as 
the  mode  of  infant  baptism.  In  1645  the  Wjestminis- 
ter  Assembly  rejected  immersion,  even  as  an  alter- 
nate form  with  sprinkling-,  which  g-oes  to  show  that 
the  Presbyterians  had  long-ago  abandoned  dipping-, 
and  they  now  hold  that  immersion  is  not  the  mode 
of  baptism  at  all.  The  Puritans  had  universally 
adopted  sprinkling-.  At  the  time  of  this  Blunt 
movement,  immersion,  as  believers'  baptism,  in  the 
language  of  Barber,  was  "lost,"  *'  raced  out;"  and 
Crosby  is  in  exact  agreement  with  Kiffin,  Bampfield, 
Barber  and  others  of  the  period  when  he  says  that, 
at  the  time  of  the  movement  of  the  "English  Bap- 
tists "for  the  "revival  of  immersion,"  it  ^'' had  for 
some  time  been  disused.'''' 

3.  The  agitation  for  the  revival  of  immersion  in 
England  began  by  the  "Baptists,"  and  was  opposed 
by  the  Pedobaptists,  in  view  of  its  restoration. 
Crosby  says:  "When  some  of  the  English  Protes- 
tants (Baptists)  WERE  FOR  reviving  the  antient 
practice  of  immersion,  they  had  several  difficulties 
thrown  in  their  way  about  a  proper  administrator." 
The  expression,  "WERE  FOR,"  shows  the  prece- 
dence of  the  agitation  before  the  fact  of  restoration 
by  the  "English  Baptists;"  and  this  is  proof  posi- 
tive that  it  was  a  Baptist  and  not  a  Pedobaptist 
movement,  and  opposed  by  Pedobaptists  to  begin 
with.  The  controversy,  sprung  before  the  restora- 
tion, continued  many  years  after  the  fact;  but  it  be- 
gan by  the  l*edobaptists  upon  the  attempt  to  restore 
immersion  by  the  "Baptists."     (I.,  pp.  '>6,  '>7.) 


62  Revieio  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

4.  The  nature  of  this  controversy  demonstrates 
that  it  was  a  Baptist  movement  to  beg-in  with,  and 
that  as  such,  the  "  English  Baptists,"  according-  to 
Crosby,  were  both  "perplexed"  and  "divided"  as 
to  "how  to  act  in  the  matter  (of  restoration),  so  as 
not  to  be  guilty  of  any  disorder  or  self-contradic- 
tion." (,!.,  p.  97.)  If  it  had  been  a  Pedobaptist 
movement  the  question  of  "disorder  or  self-contra- 
diction" would  never  have  occurred  to  the  movers. 
Neither  would  any  but  Baptists  have  been  "per- 
plexed" and  "divided"  over  the  "difficulties"  thrown 
in  their  way  by  Pedobaptists. 

(a)  According  to  Crosb}-,  the  Pedobaptist  argu- 
ment at  the  beginning  of  the  English  Reformation 
was  substantially  this,  that  the  Anabaptists,  who 
at  that  time  adopted  believers'  baptism  and  broke 
with  infant  baptism,  began  their  baptism  anew 
without  a  proper  administrator,  since  all  the  world 
at  that  time  was  in  the  church  through  infant  bap- 
tism, and  that  the  Anabaptist  position,  if  true, 
would  unchurch  all  who  were  baptized  in  infancy — 
so  Bishop  Burnet. 

(d)  The  Pedobaptist  argument  in  1640  was  that 
those  who  would  restore  immersion,  which  had 
been  lost,  likewise  had  no  proper  administrator  " /c 
begin  that  method  of  baptizino;  "  and  that  the  Bap- 
tist position,  which  held  that  immersion  was  the 
"essential  form  of  baptism,"  if  true,  would  imply 
that  there  were  "none  truly  baptized" — that  is, 
would  unbaptize  everybody  else.      (I.,  pp.  96,  97.) 

Not  only  does  this  Pedobaptist  argument  at  the 
time  prove  that  the  restoration  movement  was  dis- 
tinctively Baptist,  but  that  there  were  none  im- 
mersed at  the  period  of  restoration,  not  even  the 
Baptists  themselves. 

5.  The  several  methods  by  which  the  "English 
Baptists,"  as  Crosby  calls  them,  proposed  to  restore 
immersion,  and  by  which  to  avoid  inconsistency,  de- 
monstrate that,  when  the  movement  began  to  be  agi- 


Sum  of  the  Crosby  Argument.  53 

tated;  immersion  as  believers'  baptism  did  not  exist 
in  Eng-land,  and  that  it  was  distinctively  a  Baptist 
movement.  There  were  three  different  "methods" 
proposed  for  the  solution  of  the  difl&cuhy  which  the 
Pedobaptists  threw  in  their  way.      (I.,  p.  97.) 

(a)  Some  were  for  beginning-  with  a  self-baptized 
administrator,  after  the  manner  of  John  Smyth;  but 
Crosby  shows  that  that  method  was  repudiated,  and 
that  Smyth's  self-baptism,  though  it  were  immer- 
sion, never  succeeded  to  the  English  Baptists.  The 
Bampfield  Document  shows  that  this  method  was 
also  attempted  at  the  restoration  of  baptism  in  Eng- 
land, but  that  it  went  to  nought. 

(d)  Others  were  for  sending  to  the  "Foreign 
Protestants"  (Dutch  Baptists)  and  obtaining  it 
thus  by  succession  from  them. 

(c)  The  great  body  of  Baptists  held  that  baptism 
could  be  lawfully  restored  by  an  unbaptized  admin- 
istrator when  lost  or  generally  corrupted. 

Crosby  then  proceeds  to  show  (I.,  p.  100)  that 
these  two  last  methods  were  "adopted"  and  "prac- 
ticed accordingly."  He  says:  "The  two  other 
methods  that  I  mentioned  were  indeed  both  taken 
by  \h.Q  Baplisis  at  their  revival  of  immersion  in  Eng- 
land., as  I  find  it  acknowledged  and  justified  in  their 
writings."     How? 

( 1. )  According  to  the  Hutchinson  Account  and  the 
Kifi&n  Manuscript,  both  of  which  Crosby  quotes  to 
prove  the  fact  that  Richard  Blunt  was  sent  to  Hol- 
land, where  he  obtained  immersion  from  the  Col- 
legiants,  those  "foreign  Protestants,"  who,  as 
Crosby  says,  '''■had  used  immersion  for  some  time'" — 
that  is,  since  1619,  in  Holland  where  immersion  had 
lip  to  that  time,  according  to  Crosby's  intimation 
here,  been  also  lost. 

(2.)  "But,"  says  Crosby,  "  the  greatest  number  of 
the  English  Baptists,  and  the  more  judicious,  looked 
upon  all  this  as  needless  trouble  and  what  proceeded 
from  the  old  Popish  doctrine  of  right  to  administer 


54  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

sacraments  by  an  uninterrupted  succession — that  is, 
sending-  to  Holland  for  baptism,  etc.  They  offinned., 
therefore  (the  greatest  number  and  the  more  judi- 
cious of  the  English  Baptists),  2in& practiced  accord- 
ingly that  after  a  g-eneral  corruption  of  baptism,  an 
unbaptized  person  mig-ht  warrantably  baptize,  and 
so  begin  a  reformation."  This  theory  of  beg-inning" 
by  an  unbaptized  administrator  was  maintained  by 
Spilsbury,  Tombes  and  Laurence;  and  Crosby  con- 
cludes by  saying-:  "By  the  excellent  reasonings  of 
these  and  other  learned  men,  -we  see  their  (the  Bap- 
tists) bcirinning  wz.^  ^qW  defended  upon  the  same 
principles  on  which  all  other  Protestants  founded 
their  reformation."     (Vol.  I.,  pp.  103-107.) 

6.  Crosby  is  clear  that  these  "  two  methods  "  were 
'*  both  taken  by  the  Baptists  "  at  a  g-iven  time  with- 
out reference  to  dates  in  this  connection.  When 
was  it?  "/!/  their  revival  of  immersion  in  England. " 
How  was  it?  By  a  simultaneous  movement,  by  two 
difiEerent  methods,  on  the  part  of  the  "English  Bap- 
tists" as  a  body;  and  thoug-h  one  method  logically 
appears  to  precede  the  other  in  the  order  of  time, 
yet  the  g-eneral  movement  is  comprehended  in  the 
same  period  of  time  and  belonged  to  both  bodies  of 
the  Eng-lish  Baptists  as  disting-uished  by  succes- 
sionists  and  anti-successionists.  The  anti-succes- 
sion method  evidently  followed  the  succession 
method  immediately  upon  the  adoption  of  the  lat- 
ter; or,  as  Dr.  Newman  sugg-ests,  the  anti-succes- 
sion method  may  have  been  adopted  in  1640,  and 
before  Blunt  returned  from  Holland,  upon  the  agi- 
tation of  the  subject  by  the  successionists,  which 
would  better  explain  the  early  utterances  of  Spils- 
bury and  Barber  in  1641-42.  This  discovery,  how- 
ever, is  not  made  by  Neal,  who  drew  his  inference 
from  the  Kiffin  and  other  Manuscripts,  that  the 
Jessey-Blunt  movement  had  the  precedence. 

7.  The  Crosby  Account  assumes  that  the  Baptists 
of  Eng-land,  as  such,  had  a  "  beg-inning- "  of  their 


Sum  of  the  Croaby  Argument.  55 

own,  both  organic  and  baptismal,  the  organic  pre- 
ceeding-  the  baptismal;  and  he  reg^ards  them  as 
other  Eng-lish  Protestants,  establishing-  their  re- 
formation upon  similar  principles.  He  fixes  their 
baptismal  beg-inning-  at  the  time  of  "  their  rczv^Y// 
of  immersion  in  Kngland;"  and,  whatever  the  date, 
this  '•'■  bcghining-''^  or  "reformation,"  similar  to  that 
of  other  Protestants  in  principle  and  fact,  arg-ues 
that  immersion  was  lost  in  Eng-land,  and  that  its 
restoration  was  a  combined  movement  of  the  Bap- 
tists already  org-anizcd  into  churches. 

8.  The  point  at  issue  is  this;  What  was  the  date 
of  this  baptismal  ^^beginnhig?'''  I  unhesitating-ly 
afi&rm  that  it  must  have  taken  place,  1640-41,  ac- 
cording to  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  confirmed  bj 
Neal.  The  movement  as  described  and  detailed  by 
Crosby  cannot  be  divided  without  violence  to  the 
order  and  connection  of  his  account,  nor  can  it  be 
applied  to  any  other  period  in  Baptist  history.  It 
neither  fits  in  whole,  nor  in  part,  1611,  1633,  nor 
1638.  The  question  of  immersion  as  believers'  bap- 
tism and  a  proper  administrator  thereof  was  never 
sprung  in  England  among  the  Baptists  before  nor 
after  1640-41;  and  the  controversy  which  raged  be- 
tween Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  on  this  subject  can 
only  be  traced  from  1640-41  and  onward.  Besides 
this,  Crosby,  in  his  use  of  the  Kiffin  Manuscript, 
gives  the  date  1640  (Vol.  III.,  p.  141)  as  the  year  of 
the  agitation  on  the  subject  in  question  in  the  Jes- 
sey  Church;  and  he  records  the  event  of  1641  which 
followed  it  in  the  Kiffin  Manuscript,  in  which  he 
shows  the  restoration  of  immersion  by  the  liaptists 
of  England,  originating  in  the  Blunt  movement. 
This  unqualifiedly  settles  the  date  of  the  movement, 
even  according  to  Crosby. 

9.  The  assumption  that  this  1640-41  movement 
was  merely  a  succession  issue  sprung  by  a  handfull 
of  secessionists  from  a  Pedobaptist  Church,  while 
the  Helwisse  and  Spilsbury  Churches  were  alriMclv 


56  Revieiv  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Qoestion. 

in  the  practice  of  immersion,  is  wholly  at  variance 
with  Crosby's  account  and  with  Hutchinson,  Kifi&n, 
Bampfield,  Jessey  and  other  documents,  to  say 
nothing-  of  Spilsbury,  Tombes,  Lawrence,  Barber 
and  other  Baptist  writers  of  the  period.  Crosby  posi- 
tively makes  it  a  movement  of  the  "  Eng-lish  Bap- 
tists," without  distinction  and  as  a  body  at  a  g-iven 
time;  and  all  the  powers  of  sophistry  and  casuistry 
combined  can  never  draw  any  other  conclusion  from 
this  section  of  Crosby's  history  of  the  Baptists  of 
England. 

The  movement  was  started,  I  grant,  by  secessions 
from  the  congregations  of  Protestant  dissenters  in 
and  about  London  by  "sober  and  pious  persons," 
like  Blunt  and  those  with  him  in  the  agitation;  but 
Crosby  says  that  they  were  "Baptists" — Baptists, 
evidently  from  some  of  the  Baptist  Churches,  and 
followed  by  many  from  Pedobaptist  Churches,  who 
began  this  movement;  and  when  the  movement  had 
begun,  the  whole  English  Baptist  fraternity  joined 
in  it,  and  restored  immersion  along  different  lines 
of  thought  and  method.  Even  if  the  movement 
had  been  started  by  Pedobaptists  seceding  from 
Pedobaptist  Churches,  it  is  clear  that  Crosby  makes 
it  a  Baptist  movement  in  which  all  the  Baptists  of 
England  joined. 

Finally,  it  may  be  conceded  that  there  were  some 
few  Anabaptist  conventicles,  hid  here  and  there,  as 
Hillcliffe,  Eyethorne  and  Bocking-Baintree,  which 
succeeded  from  earlier  dates  than  belong  to  English 
Baptist  history.  Crosby,  though  doubted  by  some, 
says  that  individually  the  Anabaptists  were  "  inter- 
mixed" with  the  Puritans  up  to  1633,  when  they  be- 
g-an  to  separate  and  organize  churches  of  their  own. 
Grant  all  this,  and  yet  there  is  no  evidence  of  im- 
mersion among  those  Anabaptists,  whether  mixed 
with  the  Puritans,  or  hid  here  and  there  in  conven- 
ticles, until  1641;  and  even  if  there  had  been,  their 
immersion  would  cut  no  figure  in  the  restoration 


Sum  of  the  Crosby  Argument.  57 

movement  of  1641,  in  which  the  Baptist  body,  as 
such,  acted.  All  that  could  be  said  of  such  conven- 
ticles, if  thej  ever  existed,  is  that  after  1641  they 
fell  into  line  with,  and  were  absorbed  by,  the  Baptist 
body  and  movement  to  which,  before  1641,  the}- 
were  then  wholly  unknown  in  history,  and  wholly 
unknown  now  as  to  their  first  existence,  except  upon 
"tradition,"  which  no  reliable  historian  has  ever 
reg-arded  as  valid  history  in  the  case. 

This  is  the  Crosby  argument  in  the  case  ag-ainst 
Dr.  Thomas;  and  I  think  I  have  shown  conclusively 
that  the  Kif&n  Manuscript,  by  "reasonable  infer- 
ence," is  in  "precise  accord"  with  Crosby's  state- 
ment— not  of  the  long-  prior  7isc  of  immersion  in 
Eng-land — but  of  the  long-  prior  disuse  of  immersion 
in  Eng-land,  and  of  its  restoration  by  the  Baptists 
in  1640-41.  To  be  sure,  Crosby  does  not  mention 
the  1641  date;  but  his  account,  in  the  very  nature  of 
the  facts  detailed  and  described — in  the  very  order 
and  connection  of  those  facts — accords  with  the 
Kifl&n  Document,  which  orig-inally  fixed  this  date, 
which  is  confirmed  by  Neal,  and  which  essentially 
follows  1640,  a  date  used  by  Crosby  himself. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


The  Simultaneous  Change. 


DR.  THOMAS  makes  the  point,  (pp.  6,  7)  of  prior 
presumption  ag-ainst  Dr.  Whitsitt's  theory  that 
about  1641,  some  fifty  Baptist  congregations  simul- 
taneously chang-ed  from  aspersion  to  immersion; 
repudiating-  "a  custom  to  which  they  were  tradi- 
tionally attached,  which  was  in  universal  use,  in 
behalf  of  another  custom  which  nobody  among* 
them  had  ever  practiced  or  heard  of;"  and  that 
too  "without  any  newly  assigned  or  intellig-ible 
motive,  etc." 

Dr.  Thomas  presents  this  objection  with  p-reater 
emphasis  and  in  strong-er  light  than  the  subject 
demands,  but  it  deserves  respectful  consideration. 
There  is  some  difficulty  in  the  way  of  answering-  it 
for  the  lack  of  voluminous  testimony  contempo- 
raneous with  Crosby's  account  of  the  change,  which 
definitely  describes  the  process  of  such  a  revolution; 
but  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  the 
chang-e  did  take  place,  and  how  it  took  place  accord- 
ing- to  the  "methods"  adopted  for  the  restoration  of 
immersion  by  the  Baptists  of  Eog-land.  It  is  per- 
fectly easy  to  see  how  the  Blunt  movement  occurred 
in  the  establishment  of  the  first  immersion  con- 
g-reg-ation  upon  the  principle  of  baptismal  succession 
derived  from  Holland.  Dr.  Thomas  does  not  deny 
this  change,  althoug-h  he  ascribes  it  to  a  Pedo- 
baptist  congregation.  Crosby,  however,  says  that 
the  other  method  by  anti-succession  was  adopted  by 
the  "g-reatest  number  of  the  Eng^lish  Baptists,  and 
the  more  judicious"  who  "affirmed  and  praticed 
accordingly,  that  after  a  g-eneral  corruption  of  bap- 
tism, an  unbaptized  person  mig-ht  warrantably  bap- 

(58) 


The  Simultaneous  Change.  59 

tize  and  so  begin  a  reformation;"  and  he  says  that 
these  Baptists  of  England  established  their  '''  bcgin- 
t}ig'^  upon  the  ''same  principles  upon  which  other 
protestants  built  their  reformation.'  According  to 
the  logical  connection  and  order  of  Crosby's  narra- 
tive of  this  revolution  in  Baptist  history,  this 
"reformation"  among  the  great  body  of  Baptists, 
began  either  upon,  or  immediately  after,  the  move- 
ment of  Blunt  to  restore  immersion  in  1640-41. 

So  much  for  the  fact  that  the  simultaneous  change 
did  occur  about  1641.  The  Bampfield  Document  is 
also  an  account  of  the  methods  taken  by  the  Bap- 
tists { of  England)  to  obtain  a  proper  administration 
of  baptism  by  immersion,  "when  that  practice  had 
been  so  long  disused  that  there  was  no  one  who  had 
been  so  baptized  to  be  found;"  and  this  document 
goes  into  details  of  the  manner  in  which  especially 
the  Spilsbury  method  was  adopted,  with  a  vindi- 
cation of  the  same  by  Henry  Laurence,  whom 
Crosby  quotes  in  precisely  the  same  connection  in 
his  accDunt  of  the  adoption  of  this  method  by  the 
"greatest  number  and  the  more  judicious  of  the 
Baptists  "  at  "their  revival  of  immersion  in  Eng- 
land." Bampfield,  who  became  a  Baptist  in  Lon- 
don about  1676,  and  who  sought  from  "printed 
records  "and  "  credible  witnesses  "  to  find  the  "first 
administrator"  of  immersion,  in  the  "Historical 
Declaration  of  His  Life,"  (pp.  15,  16,  17)  mentions 
five  different  forms  of  administration  by  which  the 
anti-succession  method  was  put  in  operation;  and 
however  variant  or  irregular  its  piocess  of  adoption 
and  extension,  at  the  time  Bampfield  wrote,  after 
1676,  the  Spilsbury-Laurence  method  had  become 
general  among  the  Baptists  in  and  about  London. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  in  1()41  the  Baptists 
with  their  supposed  fifty  churches  were,  after  all, 
but  a  handfuU  of  people,  mostly  located  in  and 
about  London.  It  would  not  have  taken  long  to 
effect  the    change    from   aspersion   to   immersion, 


60  Review  cf  Dr.  J.  Ji.  Thonuis  on  the  Whitailt  (>uei<tion. 

especiaLy  at  this  revolutionary  period  of  new  ideas 
and  g-reater  liberty,  when  once  the  conviction  seized 
the  g-eneral  body  of  brethren  that  baptism  "  ought 
to  be  by  dipping-,"  and  that  the  ordinance  had  been 
"lost;"  and  yet  while  the  change  seems  to  have 
been  immediate  and  simultaneous  with  many,  it  did 
not  so  follow  with  all.  Dr.  Kvans  (Vol.  II.,  pp.  52, 
S3)  points  to  the  fact  that  even  in  1646,  at  Chelms- 
ford, there  existed  the  "Old  Men,  or  AspersV  and 
the  "New  Men,  or  Immersi^''''  indicating  that, 
among  the  Anabaptists  or  Baptists,  "  both  methods 
(of  baptism)  were  practiced;"  and  he  says  again 
(Vol.  II.,  p.  79):  "Most  will  now  see  that  the 
practice  of  the  Mennonite  brethren  (affusion)  was 
common  in  this  country  (England).  These  New 
Men  {Iimnersi)  soon  cast  them  (the  Old  Men,  or 
Aspersi)  into  the  shade,  and  their  practice  speedily 
became  obsolete.  Immersion  as  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, became  the  rule  of  both  sections  of  the  Baptist 
community.  Indeed,  from  this  time  (1646)  beyond 
the  facts  already  given  (at  Chelmsford)  we  know 
not  a  solitary  exception."  It  took  about  five  vears 
from  1641  to  1646  to  fully  effect  the  change  among 
the  Anabaptists,  or  Baptists;  and  from  the  litera- 
ture of  the  period,  we  infer  considerable  excitement 
and  controversy  which  indicate  the  variant  and 
irregular  process,  in  the  intervening  time,  which 
characterized  this  revolution  in  Baptist  history. 

Up  to  the  year  1640-41  there  is  not  the  slightest 
hint  of  immersion  among  tne  English  Baptists. 
They  distinctly  separated  from  their  Puritan  breth- 
ren, apparently  in  good  fellowship,  upon  the  ground 
of  disbelief  in  infant  baptism  and  of  belief  in 
believer's  baptism.  They  received  "another"  or  a 
"new"  baptism;  but  it  is  not  until  "  they  were  for" 
revivino-  "the  ancient  practice  of  immersion"  that 
the  controversy  began  with  the  Pedobaptists  of 
England,  in  which  we  discover  from  1640-41  onward 
that  a  change  took  place  in  the  practice  of  the  Bap- 


The  Simultaneous  Change.  61 

tists,  or  that  there  was  any  distioction  among-  them 
as  to  ^'■Aspersi  '  and  ^'■Immcrsi.'''  Before  this  date  we 
have  the  historical  data  of  Anabaptist  or  Baptist 
organizations,  of  their  opposition  to  infant  baptism 
and  of  their  "further"  or  "new"  baptism,  about 
which  there  seemed  to  be  little  or  no  concern  among- 
their  Puritan  brethren,  at  least;  but  it  was  not 
until  1640-41  that  public  and  violent  attention  is 
directed  to  their  practice  of  immersion  which  was 
called  "new"  not  in  the  sense  of  a  "further" 
baptism  after  the  mode  of  their  I'edobaptist  an- 
cestors, but  in  the  sense  of  an  innovation  upon  that 
mode. 

In  fact,  the  first  attention  ever  called  to  baptism 
as  having-  any  "novel  mode  of  administration"  to 
be  met  with  in  the  history  of  the  times,  was  in 
1641  when  "a  g-reat  multitude  of  people  were  seen 
going  towards  the  river  in  Hackney  Marsh  (near 
London)  and  were  followed  to  the  waterside,  where 
they  were  SiW  daptized  a ora in,  (rebaptized)  themselves 
doing-  it  07ie  to  another'' — in  perfect  accord  with 
Bampfield's  account  of  the  several  variant  and 
irregular  methods  by  which  the  Spilsbury  theory 
went  into  practice  at  the  restoration  of  immersion 
by  the  Baptists  of  England.  It  is  not  certain  that 
this  was  altogether  a  Baptist  transaction,  but  it  is 
characteristic  of  the  change  inaugurated  in  1641. 
and  of  the  unsettled  and  irregular  process  by  which 
the  movement  of  rebaptism  by  immersion  began  at 
that  time. 

Besides  this,  there  is  some  other  evidence  of 
the  crude,  if  not  improper,  wa^'s  which  character- 
ized the  introduction  of  this  new  movement  in  ICng- 
land,  which  go  to  show  its  novelty  for  some  time 
after  1641.  The  baptism  of  both  men  and  women 
naked  by  some,  and  by  all  sorts  of  administrators, 
though  denied  by  a  few  leading  Baptists  of  the 
times,  was  charged  by  Baxter,  Watts,  Edwards, 
Houghton,  Goodwin,  Featley,  Hagg-ar,  Hall,  Bake- 


62  Revieiv  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

well,  Richardson  and  others;  and  whether  true  or 
false,  it  is  clear  that  the  period  to  which  we  refer 
the  chang-e  of  baptism  from  sprinkling-  to  immer- 
sion, was  marked  by  many  g-ross  irreg-ularities  and 
novelties.  Some  Anabaptist  sermons,  catechisms 
and  other  utterances  are  quoted  in  favor  of  "naked" 
baptism  at  the  time;  and  it  is  probable  that  the  ap- 
pended note  of  the  Baptist  Confession  of  1644  which 
accompanies  the  article  on  baptism,  and  which  re- 
quires "convenient  g-arments"  for  "both  the  admin- 
istrator and  subject,  with  all  modesty"  was  sug-- 
gested  by  this  abuse  of  the  ordinance,  in  its  variant 
and  irreg-ular  administration  by  irresponsible  per- 
sons, characteristic  of  its  introduction  at  that  period. 
Ag-ain  it  is  also  clear  from  the  controversial  liter- 
ature of  the  time  that  this  chang-e  took  place  1640-41 
and  onward,  and  was  a  novelty  in  the  estimation  of 
the  Pedobaptists — not  denied  by  the  Baptists  them- 
selves, but  so  admitted  by  them.  In  the  earlier 
part  of  1642,  Barebone,  in  a  published  work  on  "In- 
fant Baptism,"  speaks  of  "the  way  of  new  baptiz- 
ing-, /ate/y  begun  to  be  practiced"  by  the  Baptists — 
''''vciy  lately,''''  he  says  ag-ain,  "according-  to  their 
new  discovery" — and  as  making-  an  "absolute  nulli- 
ty" of  all  other  baptism,  in  precise  accord  with 
Crosby's  statement  of  the  Pedobaptist  controversy 
when  the  Baptists  '"xvere  for  reviving-  the  ancient 
practice  of  immersion."  Barebone  charg-es  the 
Baptists  as  having-  been  baptized  a  ''Hhird  iime,'^  and 
as  having  made  "a  nullity  of  i'h&ix  p?-esent  baptism," 
(1)  in  having-  formerly  rejected  their  infant  baptism 
in  favor  of  believers'  baptism;  (2)  in  now  rejecting- 
aspersion  as  the  "further  baptism"  received  at  the 
time  of  becoming-  Anti-Pedobaptists;  (3)  in  having- 
revived  immersion  as  the  Scriptural  and  only  mode 
of  baptism.  In  the  same  year,  1642,  several  treatises 
were  written  by  Kilcop,  Barber,  A.R.  and  R.B.,  in 
reply  to  Barebone;  but  there  is  not  only  no  denial  of 
Barebone's  charg-es,   but  a  defense  of   the  charges 


The  Shnultaneous  Change.  63 

preferred.  Barber  claimed  that  he  had  been  raised 
up  to  divulg-e  the  g-lorious  principle  of  the  "True 
Baptism,"  and  he  distinctly  avers  that  the  ordinance 
had  been  "lost,"  "destroyed  and  raced  out,  both  for 
forw  and  matlc)\'"  and  that  true  "believers,  having- 
Christ,  the  Word  and  the  Spirit,"  had  the  rig-ht  to 
"raise"  up  ag-ain  baptism,  which  had  been  "raced 
out."  In  his  reply  to  R.B.,  1643,  Barebone  fixes 
''Hu'o  or  th'ce  years'^  2l^  the  period  of  "descent,"  or 
"some  such  short  time,"  of  the  "total  dippers  in  the 
king-dom" — which  easily  points  back  to  1641  as  the 
then  well  known  date  of  reviving-  immersion  in 
Eng-land  by  the  Baptists.  Watts,  in  1^56-7,  g-ives 
the  origin  of  dipping-  in  England  as  ''about  ij.  or 
14.  yearc  agoe^'''  which  would  also  fit  the  year  1640- 
41,  as  the  date  of  the  baptismal  revival,  or  its  tran- 
sition state  immediately  following-.  Of  course  exact 
dates  were  not  preserved  by  these  writers. 

The  many  desig-nations  of  the  Baptists'  reforma- 
tion of  baptism  as  a  "«ozr//y"  by  the  Pedo-baptists 
from  1642  to  1670  and  onward  go  to  demonstrate  by 
their  uniformity  and  persistence  that  a  baptismal 
change  took  place  among-  the  Baptists  in  1641  and 
onward.  Dr.  Featley,  in  1644,  calls  it  a  '''new 
leaven;''''  Cooke,  1644,  speaks  of  the  Baptists  as  ""nezv 
dippers;'"  the  author  of  the  Loyall  Convert,  1()44, 
styles  it,  "7y/<7  Nezv  Distemper;'''  Knutton,  1644, 
calls  it  ''new  and  upstart ;''  Pag-itt,  1645,  speaks  of 
it  as  a  '"'nezu  crotchet;'''  Saltmarsh,  1645,  Eachard, 
1645,  Stevens,  1650,  Goodwin,  1653,  call  the  Ana- 
baptist baptizing-  a  ^'new  baptism;''  Baillie,  1646, 
calls  it  a  "new  invention;"  Watts,  1657,  declares 
that  it  was  a  ''new  business  and  a  very  novelty;"' 
Baxter,  1669,  calls  "it  anew  sort  of  baptism ;''  and  so 
others  spoke  of  it  at  the  time  as  a  "yesterday's  con- 
ceit;" a  "a  sparkle  of  nezv  light ;"  "taken  up  o)ily  the 
other  year;"  and  while  the  Baptists,  such  men  as 
Blunt,  Kilcop,  A.R.,  R.B.,  Knollys,  King-,  Barber, 
Collins  and  others,  admitted  that  it  was  "//r::"  in 


64  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

Eng-land,  they  invariably  defended  its  restoration 
upon  the  ground  that  the  ordinance  had  been  "cor- 
rupted," "buried,"  "raced  out,"  and  "lost"  in  the 
"apostacy."  The  testimony  of  some  of  these  writers 
is  either  denied,  or  given  another  application,  but 
in  the  light  of  Crosby's  account  and  the  Bampfield 
Document,  these  expressions  are  in  precise  accord 
with  the  facts  of  1640-41,  which  record  the  restora- 
tion of  the  "ancient  practice  of  immersion"  upon 
the  ground  that  it  "had  for  some  time  been  dis- 
used," and  "so  long  disused"  that,  in  England, 
there  "was  no  one  to  be  found  who  had  so  been  bap- 
tised." Moreover,  the  language  of  this  controversy 
from  1641  to  1670  and  still  onward  is  in  precise  ac- 
cord with  the  grounds  upon  which  Crosby  declares 
that  that  controversy  began  when  the  Baptists  '  'were 
for"  reviving  immersion. 

In  conclusion,  I  agree  with  Dr.  Thomas  that  "so 
toppling  a  hypothesis,"  as  the  sudden  and  simulta- 
neous change  of  the  Baptists  in  1641,  "needs  mas- 
sive support;"  and  I  claim  that  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  times  in  which  the  change  took  place, 
the  evidence  of  the  fact  is  amply  sufficient,  as  fur- 
nished by  Dr.  Whitsitt,  and  further  by  my  reference 
to  Crosby  and  the  Bampfield  Document.  Though 
the  Baptists  were  then  an  insignificant  people  and 
thoroughly  despised,  their  movement  called  public 
attention  and  opposition  to  such  a  degree  that  there 
is  no  mistaking  the  fact  of  their  baptismal  revolu- 
tion in  the  literature  of  the  period;  and  with  their 
suddenly  changed  and  enthusiastic  convictions,  the 
transition  and  transformation  are  easily  accounted 
for.  The  marvel  now  is  that,  with  all  the  lights 
before  us,  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Thomas  should  enter 
so  strenuously  upon  the  effort  to  explain  away,  or 
give  different  application  to  the  facts  and  utter- 
ances which  so  plainly  point  to  this  Baptist  transi- 
tion which  clearly  took  place  in  1640-41,  and  which 
cannot  be  predicated  of  any  other  period  of  Baptist 
History  in  England. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


The  Monuments. 


rHAT  the  "  momentous  change  among- Baptists" 
occurred  in  1641  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt 
in  the  light  of  the  literature  and  the  facts  of  that 
period  recorded  by  Crosby,  Bampfield  and  the  con- 
troversial writers  of  the  time.  Dr.  Whitsitt,  in  his 
defense  of  this  position,  erected  seven  monuments 
in  commemoration  of  the  fact  drawn  from  the  his- 
tory of  the  time;  and  Dr.  Thomas  in  a  whole  chap- 
ter (pp.  30-38)  undertakes  to  pull  down  these  mon- 
uments by  various  hypothetical  arguments  which 
seem  on  their  face  valid,  but  which,  after  careful 
examination,  appear  to  leave  the  monuments  which 
Dr.  Whitsitt  erected  still  standing. 

1.  Dr.  Whitsitt  assumes  that  the  XLth  Article  of 
theBaptist  Confession  ( 1644)  prescribing  immersion, 
with  directions  about  clothing — for  the  first  time 
imbedded  in  an  English  declaration  of  faith— indi- 
cates that  not  only  was  the  rite  new,  but  that  the 
manner  of  administering  it  was  yet  unsettled.  The 
argument  of  Dr.  Thomas  that  the  Baptists  hitherto 
had  "scrupled"  the  use  of  "formal  words,"  and 
"were  slow  to  promulgate  set  creeds,"  does  not 
hold,  since  they  had  already  set  up  creeds  in 
England,  though  without  the  immersion  article; 
and  he  neutralizes  his  argument  that  the  fear  of 
persecution  explains  the  absence  this  article  in 
any  past  declaration  by  his  assumption  that  "up  to 
the  Westminister  Assembly,  all  religious  bodies  in 
England  had  recoernized  and  even  insisted  upon  im- 
mersion as  normal  baptism."  Why,  then,  should 
the  English  Baptists  have  been  afraid  to  put  an  im- 
mersion article  in  their  former  creeds?  The  part 
»  (65) 


66  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thorrids  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

which  the  Westminister  Confession,  or  the  abolition 
of  the  Hig-h  Commission  Court,  played  in  actuating- 
the  Baptists  to  make  their  Confession  in  1644,  es- 
pecially as  regards  their  immersion  article,  appears 
to  the  contrarv  in  the  reasons  they  assign  fcr  their 
manifesto;  and  whatever  the  individual  utterances 
of  isolated  Baptists  hitherto  in  England  or  else- 
where, that  immersion  alone  is  baptism,  it  is  a  sig- 
nificant fact  that  such  an  article  never  appeared  in 
an  English  Baptist  Confession  before  1644,  explica- 
ble only  upon  the  previous  history  that  immersion, 
as  believers'  baptism  in  England,  had  been  re- 
stored in  1641. 

2.  The  repudiation  of  the  name  "Anabaptist"  and 
the  adoption  of  the  name  "Baptist"  in  1644  is 
claimed  by  Dr.  Whitsitt  as  a  monumental  implica- 
tion that  immersion  had  been  recently  adopted  in 
the  place  of  aspersion  by  the  Baptists  of  England. 
Dr.  Thomas  argues  that  the  title  "Baptist"  had 
before  that  been  applied  to  the  Anabaptists  of 
Switzerland  (1532,  1560),  and  that  the  Mennonites 
had  been  substantially  so  designated.  Granted; 
but  this  does  not  alter  the  significance  of  the  fact 
that  the  Anabaptists  of  England  never  assumed  the 
designation  until  1644,  thirty-three  years  after  their 
origin  in  England  as  organized  churches.  It  was 
not  until  their  restoration  of  immersion  in  England 
that  they  began  to  be  called  "baptized  people,"' 
"baptized  churches" — that  is.  Baptists  and  Baptist 
Churches — and  no  incident  in  their  history  at  the 
time  is  more  significant  of  the  fact  that  they  had 
changed  from  aspersion  to  immersion  in  the  year 
1641. 

3.  The  next  monument  of  Dr.  Whitsitt,  in  evi- 
dence of  the  recent  restoration  of  immersion  (1641) 
is  the  baptismal  controversy  which  succeeded  the 
event.  Dr.  Thomas  claims  that  "it  was  the  at- 
tempted exclusion  of  immersion  by  the  Westminis- 
ter Assembly,  and  not  the  attempt  of  the  Baptists  to 


The  Monuments.  67 

introduce  it,  that  g-ave  rise  to  the  discussion;"  but 
the  controversy  beg"an  in  1642,  two  years  before  the 
Westminister  Assembly  excluded  immersion;  an  A 
even  before  that,  when  the  Baptists  of  England 
'*zfcrc /br  reviving-  the  ancient  practice,"  the  con- 
troversy beg-an  by  the  Pedobaptists  upon  the  g-round 
that  immersion,  held  as  "the  essential  form  of  bap- 
tism," would  render  other  forms  of  baptism  a  "  nul- 
lity," and  imply  that  none  others  were  "truly  bap- 
tized." Dr.  Thomas  says  again  that  it  was  not  im- 
mersion, but  "rebaptism,"  which  provoked  the 
controversy;  but  the  Anabaptists  had  always  re- 
baptized,  and  although  rebaptism  was  in  contro- 
versy at  the  time,  as  ever  before,  yet  the  g^reat 
offense  now  was  immersion,  which  nullified  asper- 
sion and  unbaptized  those  not  immersed,  as  is 
shown  by  the  whole  contention  from  ir)40-4l  to 
1644  and  onward.  The  assumption  of  Dr.  Thomas 
that  "immersion  was  then  questioned  by  nobody" 
is  contradicted  right  at  the  start  by  Crosby's  state- 
ment (Vol.  I.,  p.  97)  of  the  Pedobaptist  g-round  of 
opposition  to  "immersion,"  held  as  "the  essential 
form  of  that  ordinance"  by  the  Baptists  and  by  the 
controversy  between  Barebone,  Barber,  Kilcop,  and 
all  the  others  cited  by  Dr.  Wliitsitt,  who  joined  in 
the  controversy.  Nothing  is  clearer  than  that  the 
controversy  about  Baptist  baptism,  as  a  "w^rzf" 
thing-  from  1640-41  to  1656  and  onward,  is  a  monu- 
ment to  the  fact  of  the  restoration  of  immersion  at 
that  time  as  believers'  baptism. 

4.  The  existence  of  the  "Old  Men,  or  Aspersi','" 
and  the  "New  Men,  or  Iinnicrsi,"'  after  1<)41  and 
down  to  1646  in  Eng-land,  and  the  fact  of  no  such 
distinction  before  1641  is  regarded  by  Dr.  Whitsitt 
as  another  monument  to  the  fact  that  immersion 
was  restored  by  the  "English  Baptists"  in  1<>41. 
Dr.  Thomas  admits  the  force  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  con- 
clusion that  the  churches  thus  divided,  or  distin- 
g-uished,   by  aspersionists   and  immersionisls  were 


68  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsltt  Question. 

Baptist  Churches;  but  he  thinks  it  "  historicallY 
probable  "  that  this  distinction  obtained  in  Pedo- 
baptist  instead  of  Baptist  Churches,  in  a  transition 
state,  of  which,  according-  to  certain  authorities 
cited,  it  was  difficult  because  of  inter-mixture  to 
know  whether  they  were  Baptists  or  Pedobaptists. 
He  seems  to  think  that  such  a  state  is  discoverable 
in  the  Jacob  Church  before  1641,  when  "some  from, 
time  to  time  were  convinced  solely  as  to  immersion, 
some  as  to  the  necessity  of  faith  before  baptism, 
while  some  went  on  to  insist  on  immersion,  even  to 
those  who  had  already  been  received  as  church 
members;"  but  this  last  assumption  is  like  the  Doc- 
tor's theory  of  the  "professed  believers"  found  in 
the  Kif&n  Manuscript,  without  any  historical  au- 
thority whatever.  As  to  his  assumption  at  the 
time  of  Pedobaptist  Churches  in  a  mixed  state,  com- 
posed of  the  As-persi  and  the  Iimnersi,  he  is  also  mis- 
taken, since  the  Chelmsford  Record  applies  the  dis- 
tinction solely  to  Anabaptists,  and  not  to  Pedobap- 
tists. Dr.  Evans,  as  already  cited  (Vol.  11. ,  p.  79), 
explicitly  refers  the  distinction  to  the  Anabaptists, 
or  Baptists,  some  of  whom  still  followed  the  Men- 
nonite  form  of  baptism  which  was  aspersion;  and 
he  goes  on  to  show  that  among"  the  Baptists  after 
1646,  the  "New  Men,  or  /wwzers/,"  soon  cast  "the 
Old  Men,  or  Aspersi,^^  into  the  shade,  and  their  prac- 
tice became  obsolete."  He  then  adds:  "Immer- 
sion, as  the  mode  of  baptism,  became  the  rule  with 
both  sections  of  the  Baptist  community." 

5.  The  break  in  the  relationship  between  the 
Mennonite  brethren  and  the  followers  of  Helwisse 
and  Morton,  after  1641,  is  regarded  as  another  mon- 
ument by  Dr.  V/hitsitt  indicating  the  change  from 
Mennonite  aspersion  to  Baptist  immersion.  Hence- 
forward the  Mennoniles  being*  recognized  as  unbap- 
tized,  they  would  be  indisposed  to  "continue  the 
friendship  and  fellowship  that  had  formerly  pre- 
vailed."    Scheffer  is  authority  for  positive  evidence 


The  Monuments.  69 

of  the  fact;  but  Dr.  Thomas  argues  the  improbability 
of  alienation  on  such  a  ground  from  the  open  com- 
munion character  of  the  Jessey  type  of  English 
Baptists,  and  from  the  fact  that  the  Mennonites  re- 
ceived into  their  membership  the  Smyth  schism, 
the  baptized  portion  of  which  he  conceives  to  have 
been  immersed  according  to  his  inference  from  the 
language  of  Dr.  MuUer.  Dr.  Thomas  also  implies 
that  the  real  antagonism  arose  from  differences  re- 
garding foot-washing,  civic  oaths,  war,  and  he 
might  have  added  the  deity  of  Christ;  but  upon 
these  questions,  according  to  Drs.  Muller  and 
Evans,  we  trace  the  most  fraternal  correspondence 
between  the  Mennonite  and  the  English  brethren 
up  to  1631;  and,  whatever  their  differences  of 
opinion  with  regard  to  some  questions,  there  was 
no  tendency  to  alienation  between  them  on  these 
accounts.  Again,  the  Helwisse  Churches  up  to 
1641  were  not  of  the  Jessey  type  of  English  Bap- 
tists, mixed  in  membership,  and  holding  to  open 
communion  with  the  unimmersed;  for  there  were  no 
such  churches  until  after  1641,  at  which  date  im- 
mersion was  introduced.  Up  to  1641,  according  to 
Drs.  Evans  and  Muller  (Hist.  Early  Baptists,  Vol. 
II.,  pp.  52,  53,  79),  Mennonite  affusion  evidently 
prevailed  with  "both  sections  of  the  Baptist  com- 
munity," and  only  entirely  disappeared  after  1646; 
and  no  break  is  distinguishable  between  the  Men- 
nonite and  Helwisse  Churches  until  1641.  Dr. 
Thomas'  inference  from  Dr.  Muller  that,  though 
some  of  the  Smyth  faction  were  sprinkled  when  re- 
ceived by  the  Waterlandors,  those  who  were  already 
baptized  had  been  immersed,  is  completely  over- 
thrown by  the  testimony  of  the  Waterlanders  them- 
selves, who  were  Arminians  and  affusionists,  and 
who,  when  they  questioned  the  English  "about 
their  doctrine  of  salvation  an<1  the  ground  and 
form  (mode)  of  their  baptism,"  said:  "  No  dilTerencc 
was  found  between  them  and  us."  (Evans,  Vol.  I., 
p.  208.) 


70  Review  of  Dr.  J .  D.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

6.  The  wild  and  sensele:ss  panic  which  sprung-  up 
after  1641  about  the  health  of  the  people  endangered 
by  immersion,  is  Dr.  Whitsitt's  sixth  monument  to 
the  fact  that  the  introduction  of  immersion  in  Eng- 
land was  of  recent  date.  It  had  never  occurred  be- 
fore, and  it  would  be  impossible  now.  Dr.  Thomas 
alludes  to  the  fact  as  an  illustration  of  the  "occa- 
sional silliness  of  great  men;"  but  his  implied  ar- 
gument that  the  furor  about  health  originated  in 
the  view  of  some  that  the  "advocates  of  immer- 
sion "  covertly  aimed  to  ' '  discourage  infant  baptism, 
since  immersion  would  be  in  the  case  of  infants  es- 
pecially deadly,"  certainly  does  not  accord  with  the 
general  history  of  the  case.  I  agree  that  the  agi- 
tation was  truly  an  illustration  of  the  "occasional 
silliness  of  great  men,"  and  of  their  blindness  and 
prejudice;  but  this  characterization  of  the  subject 
and  the  implied  argument  cited  do  not,  in  any  way, 
answer  the  position  of  Dr.  Whitsitt  that  this  agita- 
tion on  the  subject  of  health  never  occurred  before 
nor  since  in  the  history  of  English  Baptists;  and 
that  it  pointed  to  the  historic  fact  of  the  recent  in- 
troduction of  immersion  (1641)  in  England.  If  the 
Baptists  practiced  immersion  before  1641  in  Eng- 
land, why  did  not  the  "health"  question  originate 
before  1641? 

7.  The  last  monument  of  Dr.  Whitsitt  to  the  re- 
cent introduction  of  immersion  in  England  (1641) 
is  found  in  the  wDrd  "  ?'/iant/ze,'''  just  then  come  into 
use  in  England,  and  intended  to  philologically 
"antithesize  immerse"  by  way  of  classical  distinc- 
tion. A.  R.  used  it  in  his  "  Treatise  of  the  Vanity 
of  Childish  Baptism,"  London,  1642,  p.  11,  in  its 
Greek  form;  and  Christopher  Blackwood  (1644)  an- 
glicised it,  and  called  it  a  "pretty  new  slumped 
word"  that  "should  signif}' something  in  English." 
Dr.  Thomas,  however,  says  that  '•''rhantize  is  not 
broad  enough  to  antithesize  immerse,''^  and  that  the 
introduction  of  the  word  pointed  to  a  conflict  be- 


The  Monuments.  71 

tween  the  Pedobaptists,  some  of  whom  had  yielded 
to  pouring-,  but  "resented  the  further  chang^c  to 
sprinkling-  then  just  being-  introduced"' — that  is,  in 
1645,  According-  to  Dr.  Wall.  "The  new  word," 
says  Dr.  Thomas,  "was  not  derived  to  decide  the 
departure  from  immersion  to  pouring  [that  is, 
among-  Pedobaptists,  I  suppose  he  means],  but  from 
pouring-  to  sprinkling."  The  fatal  defect  in  the  ar- 
gument of  Dr.  Thomas  is  that  the  word  "  rhantize^'' 
was  introduced  in  1642,  1644,  by  the  Baptists  in  or- 
der to  disting^uish  more  perfectly,  and  as  never  be- 
fore, immersion  from  asparsion;  and  whether  "broad 
enoug-h  to  antithesize  immerse''''  or  not,  the  advo- 
cates of  immersion  so  used  it,  first  of  all,  after  1641, 
the  date  of  introducing-  immersion  into  Eng-land  as 
believers'  baptism.  The  assumption  of  Dr.  Thomas 
that  '•'■rhantize^''  was  introduced  intoEng-lish  litera- 
ture, about  the  year  1645,  in  order  to  "describe  the 
departure  from  pouring-  to  sprinkling-'  is  an  un- 
supported inference  from  the  history  of  the  contro- 
versy at  the  time. 

He  concludes  his  review  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  "  Mon- 
uments" by  saying-:  "None  of  the  circumstances 
emphasized,  on  careful  examination,  seem  irreconcil- 
aoie  w'th,  while  some  strong-ly  corroDorate,  the  com- 
monly-received opinion  that  true  Baptist  Churches 
long-  preceded  the  date  fixed  by  the  new  theory."  I 
leave  it  to  the  reader  to  judge  of  tne  truth  of  this 
proposition  in  the  light  of  "careful  examination" 
which  I  have  turned  upon  Dr.  Thomas'  cricicism  of 
Dr.  Whitsitt's  Monuments.  I  afi&rm  that  he  ha.5  not 
pulled  down  a  single  one  of  them;  and  if  there  is  a 
single  circumstance  emphasized  by  Dr.  Whitsitt  as 
a  monument  to  the  fact  that  immersion  was  intro- 
duced ixi  England  in  1641,  which  could  be  reconciled 
with,  or  made  to  corroborate,  the  commonly- received 
opinion  that  true  Baptist  Churches,  however  they 
might  have  organically  preceded  the  date  of  1641, 
immersed  before  that  date,  Dr.  Thomas  has  nowhere 


72  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

shown  the  fact.  Until  further  light,  aud  better  ar- 
g-ument  to  the  contrary,  Dr.  Whitsitt's  Monuments 
will  stand  unshaken  as  probable  evidence  that  about 
1641  immersion,  as  believers'  baptism,  was  intro- 
duced by  the  Baptists  of  England. 

These  monuments  thoroughly  establish  Crosby's 
account  of  the  "DISUSE"  and  "RESTORATION" 
of  the  "ancient  practice  of  immersion"  by  the  ^''Eng- 
lish Baptists'^  as  he  denominates  them,  and  as  he 
details  the  agitation  which  originated  in  1640  and 
culminated  in  1641.  His  authority  for  the  facts  in 
the  case  are  Hutchinson,  KifQ.n,  Spilsbury,  Tombes, 
Laurence  and  others.  Bampfield  follows  with  a 
similar  detail  of  facts  regarding  the  restoration  of 
baptism  by  the  Baptists  of  England;  and  these 
monuments  erected  by  Dr.  Whitsitt  precisely  accord 
with  Crosby  and  Bampfield  and  the  other  writers 
cited  by  both. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


CONTROVERSIAI,   WRITINGS. 


DR.  THOMAS  (p.p.  39-58)  discusses  the  subject 
of  "Controversial  Writings"  including-  a  chap- 
ter on  Featley  and  another  on  Evans  and  de  Hoop 
Scheffer.  Since  I  have  already  touched  along  this 
line,  I  shall  try  to  condense  what  I  have  to  say  fur- 
ther in  a  single  chapter. 

The  controversy  under  consideration  is  that  which 
originated  about  the  administrator  and  the  mode  of 
baptism  by  immersion  as  restored  at  the  time  of 
Blunt,  according  to  Crosby,  Hutchinson,  the  Kiffin 
Manuscript  or  the  Jessey  Records  and  the  Bampfield 
Document — the  date  being  1640-41.  Crosby  intro- 
duces the  subject  of  this  controversy  in  order  to  re- 
fute the  charge  of  Dr.  Wall  and  other  Pedobaptists 
that  Smyth's  self-baptism  succeeded  to  the  English 
Baptists,  (Vol.  I.,  p.  95,  96),  and  he  takes  up  eleven 
pages  (96-107)  to  show,  according  to  the  Hutchin- 
son Account  and  the  Kiffin  Manuscript — also,  by  the 
writings  of  Spilsbury,  Tombes,  Laurence  and  oth- 
ers— that,  after  the  some  time  disuse  of  immersion 
in  England,  it  was  restored  by  the  "English  Bap- 
tists," and  that  ''they  did  not  receive  their  baptism 
from  Smyth."  Crosby  shows  (96,97)  that  this  con- 
troversy began  by  the  Pedobaptists  with  the  "Eng- 
lish Baptists"  upon  the  agitation  of  the  subject  be- 
fore they  ("the  Baptists")  restored  immersion 
(1641),  and  then  he  shows  the  continuance  of  this 
controversy  by  the  writings  of  Spilsbury,  Tombes, 
Laurence,  Barber  and  others,  from  1641  onward,  in 
defense  of  the  Baptist  "beginning"  nnd  right  to  re- 
store immersion  when  "disused,"  generally  or  uni- 
versally  corrupted,    or    "lost;"   and  the  Bampfield 

(73) 


74  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  oyi  the  WhHsitt  Que.-^tion. 

Document  comes  along  in  precise  accord  with  the 
Crosby  account,  especially  as  to  the  restoration  of 
immersion  according-  to  the  Spilsbury  method. 

Right  along  with  the  year  1641-42,  we  discover 
Barebone,  Barber,  Kilcop,  A.R.,  R.B.,  Featley  and 
Kiffin,  plunged  into  this  controversy;  and  from 
1643-44  onward,  Featley,  Cooke,  Mabbitt,  Pagitt, 
Saltmarsh,  Knollys,  Eachard,  Baillie,  King,  Ste- 
phens, Goodwin,  Parnell,  Watts,  Baxter,  Collins,and 
others,  both  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  are  wrest- 
ling over  the  novelty  of  Baptist  immersion ;  and  the 
whole  conflict  with  its  varied  statement  and  phrase- 
ology, point  directly  to  Crosby's  account  of  the  sub- 
ject in  controversy  which  began  with  the  Blunt 
movement,  1640-41.  The  only  way  to  turn  the 
present  controversy  against  Dr.  Whitsitt  is  to  show 
that  Crosby  and  Hutchinson  are  wrong — that  the 
Kif&n  Manuscript  or  the  Jessey  Records  and  the 
Bampfield  Document  are  forgeries — that  there  was 
no  such  man  as  Blunt — or  that  the  controversy  of 
the  time  either  belongs  to  another  date,  or  has  a 
totally  different  application  to  facts. 

But  Dr.  Thomas  takes  no  such  position.  He 
deals  cautiously  in  hypothetical  inferences  based 
upon  probabilities  which  only  tend  to  neutralize  the 
evidence  in  Dr.  Whitsitt's  favor;  or  else  he  deals  in 
dubious  explanations  which  tend  to  set  up  a  counter 
theory  of  his  own.  Crosby's  whole  account  and  the 
controversy  which  pertains  to  the  facts  detailed, 
refer,  according  to  Dr.  Thomas,  to  an  insignificant 
movement  of  Pedobaptists  confined  to  a  Pedobap- 
tist  church,  which  was  independent  of  the  fact  that 
the  Baptists  were  practicing  immersion  all  the  while; 
and  the  controversial  phraseology  of  the  time  which, 
for  more  than  thirty  years,  characterized  Baptist 
immersion  as  a  "novelty"  and  a  "fresh  conce^'t," 
must  be  viewed  in  the  light,  not  of  sober  testimony 
from  the  witness  stand,  but  as  the  "flaming  rhetoric" 
of  the  "advocate"  before  the  bar.     Men  like  Bare- 


Controversial  Writings.  75 

bone,  Featley,  Baxter,  Barber,  Kilcop,  King-  and 
others,  spoke  "elliptically,"  or  "without  careful 
qualification  of  every  statement"  in  the  "flaming- 
rhetoric"  of  controversy ;  but  whether  they  did  or  did 
not,  Dr.  Thomas  invariably  finds  an  explanation  of 
what  they  say  contrary  to  Dr.  Whitsitt's  thesis!  So 
he  disposes  of  Barber,  King-,  the  Broadmead  Records, 
the  sweeping-  and  unmistakeable  characterizations 
of  P.  B.  and  even  the  plain  declaration  of  Crosby 
that  the  "Eng-lish  Baptists,"  at  a  given  time,  "re- 
stored the  ancient  practice  of  immersion"  in  Eng-- 
land.     Let  us  see. 

1.  I  shall  commence  with  Crosby,  where  Dr. 
Thomas  leaves  off.  He  says  that  "Crosby  [with 
Ivimey  who  follows  Crosby]  who  unequivocally  in- 
sists on  a  long--prior  practice  of  immersion  among- 
Baptists,  speaks  without  scruple  of  the  'restoration 
of  the  ancient  practice  of  immersion'  at  a  later  date.''' 
The  ^'' later  date''  of  which  Dr.  Thomas  speaks,  was 
at  the  time  of  the  Blunt  movement,  1641 ;  and  Cros- 
by positively  asserts  in  "precise  accord"  with  the 
Xiffin  Manuscript  and  the  Bampfield  Document, 
that  up  to  that  time,immersion  in  Eng-land  "had  for 
some  time  been  disused."  Moreover,  Crosby  asserts 
that  this  restoration  was  by  the  "Eng-lish  Baptists;" 
and  it  was  not  an  effort  simply  to  restore  immersion 
as  the  "exclusive  form  of  baptism"  but  as  the  "r/w- 
cicnt practice""  which  had  so  long-  been  lost  that  there 
was  no  one  to  be  found  who  had  so  been  baptized 
according-  to  Kiflfin,  Bampfield  and  Crosby  himself. 
That  Crosby  "unequivocally  insists  on  a  lontr.prior 
practice  of  immersion  among-  the  Baptists  of  Eng-- 
iand"  before  the  ''later  date'"  mentioned  by  Dr. 
Thomas — and  which  was  1641 — would  be  to  make 
Crosbv  flatly  contradict  himself;  and  I  hereby  deny 
the  affirmation  of  D.'.  Thomas,  and  call  him  to  the 
proof,  that  Crosby  or  Ivimey  (however  unreliable 
the  latter  with  reference  to  the  period  in  question) 
anywhere  "insists"  upon  any  such  practice  amon^ 
the  Baotistsof  Enarland  before  1641. 


76  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question 

2.  Dr.  Thomas  says  that  the  "sweeping-  charac- 
terizations of  dipping-  by  Pedobaptist  polemic 
writers  as  a  'new  baptism,'  a  'new  discover},'  a 
'fresh  conceit' — must  be  qualified  by  the  context  or 
attendant  circumstances,  or  limited  in  scope  by  the 
constituency  addressed,  in  order  to  relieve  them  of 
ignorance,  inconsistency  or  mendacity."  For  in- 
stance the  phrase  "new  baptism"  as  in  Eaton's  case 
only  meant  "further  baptism."  Of  course  we  kiicw 
in  this  instance,  that  the  phrase  "new  baptism 
did  not  mean  a  "novelty,"  and  only  implied  a  chang.^ 
from  infant  baptism  to  believers' baptism;  but  Dr. 
Thomas  knows  well  that  every  Pedobaptist  polemic 
writer  in  the  controversy  of  1541  and  onward 
meant  by  the  "new  baptism"  of  the  Baptists  a  ^^nov- 
^//)'."  He  knows,  also,  that  however  Barebone's 
constituency  might  have  viewed  immersion  as  a 
"novelty,"  Barebone  was  not  remonstrating-  with 
Pedobaptists,  but  with  Baptists,  upon  the  ground 
that  they  had  been  baptized  the  "third  time"  and 
that  their  third  baptism,  which  was  immersion,  was 
a  "new  discovery,"  not  more  than  "two  or  three 
years"  old  at  the  farthest. 

3.  To  get  back  a  little.  Dr.  Thomas  seeks  to  show 
by  the  expressions  of  Barber,  Dan'l  King,  and  the 
Broadmead  Records  cited  by  Dr.  Whitsitt,  that  they 
imply  the  prior  and  continued  existence  of  immer- 
sion up  to  1641. 

(1).  He  assumes  that  Barber's  'language  con- 
trasting the  'dipping  of  Jesus  Christ,'  practiced  by 
the  'Anabaptists,'  with  the  'dipping  of  infants,' 
taken  with  the  statement  of  persistency  in  the  truth 
during  preceding  reigns  by  some,  plainly  implies 
that  dipping  had  never  been  abandoned."  I  deny 
that  Barber's  statement  of  "persistency  in  the 
truth"  has  any  reference  to  the  practice  of  immer- 
sion by  the  Baptists  during  the  "reigns"  mentioned; 
and  I  affirm,  on  the  contrary,  that  Barber's  claim 
■fhat  he  had  been  raised  up  in  the  midst  of   even 


Controversial  Writings.  77 

ministerial  ig-norance  on  the  subject  to  "divulg-e 
the  g-lorious  truth"  of  "true  baptism,  or  dipping-, 
coupled  with  his  reply  to  Barebone  in  which  h*. 
grants  that  dipping-  had  been  "destroyed  and  racea 
out,  both  for  matter  and  form,"  and  that,  though  a 
regular  administration  of  the  ordinance  was  lost,  3-et 
that  "true  believers  having  Christ,  the  Word  and 
Spirit,"  have  the  right  to  raise  ag-ain  the  raced  out 
ordinance,  proves  that  dipping  had  been  abandoned 
in  Barber's  view — in  precise  accord  with  Crosby. 

(2.)  King's  assertion  that  "the  ordinance  of 
Christ,  which  they  have  been  deprived  of  by  the 
violence  and  tyranny  of  the  Man  of  Sin,"  according 
to  Dr.  Thomas,  points  only  to  the  practical  impos 
sibility  of  the  public  administration  of  immersion 
which  "had  been  legally  and,  so  far  as  official  vigil* 
ance  could  effect,  actually  raced  out  and  destroyed, 
but  not  necessarily  ignored  and  repudiated."  "  To 
represent  a  man,"  says  he,  "as  'deprived  by  vio- 
lence' of  a  rite  that  he  had  no  disposition  to  prac- 
tice, or  of  which  he  had  never  heard,  wouia  be 
manifestly  absurd."  It  is  not  necessary  to  the  ar- 
gument that  either  ignorance  or  indisposition  be 
charged  to  the  Baptists  in  the  disuse  of  immersion 
in  England;  but  from  whatever  cause  immersion 
fell  into  disuse — whether  by  Popish  violence,  or  by 
custom,  or  both — the  historical  fact  remains  that 
it  was  "disused,"  "destroyed,"  "raced  out,"  and 
"  restored  "  by  the  "English  Baptists;"  and  King 
only  falls,  by  different  phraseology,  into  line  with 
Crosby,  Kiffin,  Hutchinson,  Barber,  Bamplield  and 
the  rest  who  prove  that  there  had  been  no  continu- 
ance of  immersion  among  the  Anabaptists  of  Eng- 
land up  to  lh41.  It  is  nowhere  said  that  these  Ana- 
baptists "repudiated" or  "ignored, "or  "never  heard 
of"  immersion.  Whatever  their  practice  otherwise, 
or  their  reasons  for  the  same,  their  literature  recog- 
nizes immersion  as  the  Scriptural  mode  of  baptism, 
only  "corrupted."  "disused,"  "lost,"  "raced out -"and 


/8  Review  of  Dr. ./.  D.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitl  Question. 

when  the  conditions  became  favorable  they  "re- 
stored," "revived,"  "raised  ag^ain"  the  "ancient 
practice."  Dr.  Thomas  is  rig-ht  as  to  the  "practi- 
cal impossibility  of  the ptid/ic  administration  of  im- 
mersion and  its  leg-al  and  actual  destruction,  so  far 
as  official  vig-ilance  could  effect; "  but  King-,  with- 
out qualification,  employs  the  word  '"'deprived'"''  as 
expressive  of  the  disuse  of  immersion  in  Kngland, 
which  had  followed  the  violence  and  tyranny  of  the 
Man  of  Sin,  who  had  universally  corrupted  the  or- 
dinance. King-  is  in  exact  line  with  Spilsbury, 
Tombes,  Laurence,  Barber,  Collins  and  others  with 
regard  to  immersion  as  believers'  baptism,  "which 
was  lost  in  the  apostacy  "  of  Romish  tyranny  and 
corruption,  and  the  right  to  "revive  "  or  "restore" 
it  without  succession. 

(3.)  Dr.  Thomas  also  claims  that  the  "citation'' 
from  the  Broadmead  Records  (p.  19)  implied  the 
continuance  of  immersion,  not  only  among  the  Ana- 
baptists of  Germany  for  a  hundred  years  prior  to 
the  event  cited,  but  also  among  the  English  Bap- 
tists, who  are  now  said  to  have  derived  their  bap- 
tism from  them  and  who,  like  them,  had  clung  to 
believers'  baptism  and  had  resisted  the  intrusion  of 
the  Romish  inventions  (including  infant  baptism), 
by  which,  according  to  these  Records,  "for  a  long 
time"  the  t7'uth  of  believers'  baptism"  had  been 
"buried."  The  occasion  of  this  event  was  in  1641 
at  Westerleigh,  near  Bristol,  whither  John  Canne 
went  to  preach,  followed  by  a  company  of  Pedobap- 
tists  in  a  transition  state,  and  who  on  account  of 
the  prejudice  of  "  a  very  godly  great  woman,"  was 
prohibited  from  preaching  in  the  church  in  the  after- 
noon because  he  was  an  "Anabaptist"  preacher — a 
"baptized  man; "  and  so  far  as  history  shows,  there 
was  not  another  Anabaptist  in  Westerleigh  or  Bris- 
tol, where  there  was  no  Baptist  Church  at  the  time, 
nor  afterwards  before  1653,  when  the  Broadmead 
Church    became    Baptist,    and   when    the    Pithay 


Controversial  Writings.  79 

Church  is  discovered  as  the  probable  result  of 
Canne's  work  in  1641.  The  identitication  of  Canne 
■with  the  "  disreputable  Anabaptists  of  Germany" 
a  hundred  years  before  was  the  cause  of  the 
prejudice  of  the  "  g-reat  woman;"  and  while  Canne 
had  probably  become  a  Baptist  at  Southwark  in  Jan- 
aary,  1641,  and  really  held  to  immersion  as  believ- 
ers' baptism,  there  is  no  evidence,  therefore,  that 
the  German  Anabaptists,  or  the  intervening-  En- 
g"lish  Anabaptists  up  to  1641,  were  "  baptized  men  " 
or  immersionists,  althoug^h  they  held  to  the  '' /ru/Zi 
of  believers'  baptism,"  as  the  Broadmead  Records 
affirm.  Even  though  they  practiced  affusion  up  to 
1641,  they  held  to  the  '"''iruthoi  believers'  baptism," 
and  otherwise  maintained  Baptist  principles,  and 
were  essentially  Baptists;  but  there  is  nothing  in 
the  citation  from  the  Broadmead  Records  which 
"contradicts  Dr.  Whitsitt's  root  proposition,  that 
the  [so  called]  continental  ancestors  of  the  English 
Baptists  [which  is  not  here  implied]  had  abandoned 
immersion." 

Finally,  under  this  head,  Dr  Thomas  (pp.  45,  46) 
devotes  a  paragraph  to  Featley,  claimed  as  a  wit- 
ness against  Dr  Whitsitt.  Whatever  Featley's 
position  against  Anabaptist  immersion  as  exclu- 
sive of  other  forms  of  baptism,  this  was  not  the  solf 
ground  of  his  opposition  to  their  '■'nozv  practice;'' 
for  if  they  had  always  been  practicing  immersion, 
it  was  as  exclusive  of  other  forms  of  baptism  before 
1641-44  as  "«(?z:/."  On  the  contrary.  Dr.  Featley 
clearly  pronounces  Anabaptist  immersion  as  the 
*■ ''11  ezu  leaven''''  which  "wholly  sowsed  "  the  XLth 
Ariicle  of  the  Baptist  Confession  (1644),  and  if  the 
Baptists  had  been  continuously  practicing  immer- 
sion up  to  that  date,  he  would  not  have  styled  it  a 
vicious  novelty.  As  Dr.  Newman  (Review  of  the 
Question,  p.  183)  says:  "What  Featley  says  about 
their  practice  of  immersion  refers  definitely  to  the 
present,  (1644) — that   is,    when   they    "flocked    in 


80  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

great  multitudes  to  their  Jordans,  etc." — not  to 
twenty  years  before  when,  according-  to  Dr.  Feat- 
Icy,  they  were  like  the  "  Solifusra,"  showing-  only 
his  "shining-  head"  and  "speckled  skin"  and 
"thrusting-  out  his  sting-"  near  his  house  in  South- 
"wark.  Now,  however,  in  1644,  "since  the  waters 
were  troubled,"  they  were  throwing-  the  nation  into 
confusion  by  their  '''■  7iozv  practice''''  of  rebaptizing- 
hundreds  of  men  and  women,  and  by  their  weekly 
conventicles,  discussions  and  the  like.  Dr.  Feat- 
ley's  great  complaint  is,  that  the  spiritual  sword 
was  locked  up,  and  the  temporal  sword  so  otherwise 
employed  that  these  Anabaptists  could  not  be  re- 
strained; and  it  is  clear  that,  if  twenty  years  before 
these  Anabaptists  had  been  flocking-  in  g-reat  multi- 
tudes to  the  rivers,  openly  and  boldly  practicing- 
their  "new  leaven"  as  they  '"'"noTV  practiced,"  he 
would  have  known  and  seen  to  it  that  both  the 
"temporal"  and  "spiritual  sword,"  then  unlocked 
and  well  employed  in  persecution,  had  been  applied 
to  the  suppression  of  such  practice  which  now  in- 
furiated him. 

Yes,  we  should  have  heard  from  Dr.  Featley 
further  back  in  history,  not  in  a  discussion  with 
immersing-  Baptists,  but  in  civic  and  ecclesiastical 
proceedings  which  would  have  chopped  off  the 
"shining-  head"  of  the  Anabaptist  "Solifug-a" 
that  then  only  thrust  out  the  sprinkling-  "sting- "  of 
believers'  baptism,  which  was  offensive  enoug-h  to 
Dr.  Featley,  even  under  that  form  of  administration 
and  in  a  state  of  deeper  seclusion.  The  first  case 
of  commitment  to  jail  for  the  practice  of  believers' 
immersion  in  Eng-land  was  after  1641,  in  1644,  in  the 
county  of  Suffolk,  when  Laurence  Clarkson  was  im- 
prisoned for  that  offense.  (Crosby,  Vol.  I.,  p.  xv., 
Preface;  Ivimey,  Vol.  II.,  p.  561.)  If,  after_1641, 
such  proceeding-s  were  had  ag-ainst  the  practice  of 
believers'  immersion,  we  may  be  sure  that  before 
that  date  the  "spiritual"  and"  temporal  sword" 


Controversial   Writings.  8i 

would  have  been  enforced  with  bloody  severity,  if 
there  had  been  any  such  practice.  There  were  no 
such  practice  and  no  such  proceedings  in  England 
before  1641;  and  here  is  another  monument  to  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  thesis. 

The  Featly  argument  of  Dr.  Thomas  overthrows 
his  argument  ad  ignorantia.  If  the  South wark 
Baptists  were  practicing  immersion  before  1041,  and 
Featley  knew  it,  then  Blunt,  Lucar,  Blacklock, 
Kiflin,  Jessey,  and  such  like  knew  it.  But  these 
men  knew  to  the  contrary,  or  else  the  main  para- 
graph of  the  Kifi&n  manuscript  had  not  been  inserted ; 
nor  would  Crosby  and  Bampfield  have  declared  the 
disuse  of  immersion  in  England  prior  to  1640-41; 
nor  would  the  great  and  prolonged  controversy 
about  the  novelty  of  Baptist  immersion  have  fol- 
lowed 1640-41.  Therefore,  Featley  knew  nothing 
of  Baptist  immersion  before  1641;  and  his  language 
on  the  subject  applies  to  1644. 
6 


CHAPTER  X. 


The  Burden  of  Proof. 


BEFORE  reaching-  this  head,  I  wish  to  notice  some 
things  said  by  Dr.  Thomas,  which  lead  up  to  the 
subject  under  consideration.  On  page  46,  he  charges 
Dr.  Whitsitt  with  confounding  "things  that  differ" 
in  his  citation  and  interpretation  of  some  passages 
from  the  literature  of  the  time.  He  alludes  to  the 
case  of  the  "two  sorts  of  Anabaptists" — the  Old 
Men  or  Aspersi,  and  the  New  Men  or  Immersi — in 
Chelmsford,  which  Dr.  Whitsitt  cites  as  a  monu- 
ment to  the  fact  that  immersion  had  been  intro- 
duced in  1641,  before  which  time  the  distinction  of 
Aspersi  and  Immersi  had  never  been  known  among 
Anabaptists.  Dr.  Thomas  assumes  that  the  dis- 
tinction is  referred,  not  to  a  church,  but  to  the 
"people"  of  a  "town"  in  which  the  "third  part 
refuse  to  communicate  in  the  church  liturgy,  etc. ;"' 
and  the  Doctor  thinks  that,  of  the  two  sorts  of 
Anabaptists  distinguished  as  Aspersi  and  Immersi, 
the  Aspersi  sort  consisted  of  individuals  emerging 
from  Pedobaptist  churches  towards  Baptist  position, 
first  rejecting  infant  baptism  and  then  sprinkling, 
and  were  at  either  stage  of  progress  called  Ana- 
baptists. The  record  implies  no  such  intimation; 
and  I  think  Dr.  Evans  (Vol.  I.  p.  52)  is  right  when 
he  refers  the  Chelmsford  distinction  to  Baptist 
communities  which  still  held,  at  least  in  part, 
to  the  affusion  of  the  Mennonite  brethren;  and  who 
says  again,  (Ibid,  p.  79),  that  after  1646,  "these 
New  Men  (or  Immersi^  soon  cast  them  (the  Old 
Men,  or  Aspersi)  into  the  shade,  and  their  practice 
became  obsolete" — adding  that  "immersion,  as  the 

(82) 


The  Burden  of  Proof.  83 

mode    of    baptism,     became    the    rule    with    both 
sections  of  the  Baptist  community." 

Dr.  Thomas  says  that  "The  question  in  hand  is 
not  whether  all  Anabaptists  had  been  always  alike, 
nor  whether  all  persons,  churches,  or  communities, 
reckoned  as  Anti-pedobaptistimmersionists,in  whole 
or  in  part,  after  1641,  had  always  been  such,  but 
whether  there  were  any  individuals  or  churches 
that  had  practiced  the  immersion  of  believers  in 
England  before  that  time."  He  protests  against 
"appealing  to  the  history  of  Pedobaptist  com- 
munities or  churches  in  transition,  as  if  these  were 
typical,  and  indeed  the  only.  Baptist  churches." 
He  admits  that  many  of  the  mixed,  and  some  of  the 
distinct,  churches  of  to-day  did  spring  out  of  Inde- 
pendent bodies;  but,  says  he,  "It  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  all  did  so."  In  reply  to  all  of  which  let 
me  say: 

1.  All  Anti-Pedobaptists  were  not  always  alike  in 
doctrine,  polity,  or  baptism;  but  in  England  they 
were  never  differentiated  by  the  distinctions  of 
Aspersi  and  Imi)iersi  until  after  1641. 

2.  All  persons,  churches,  or  communities,  reck- 
oned as  Anti-Pedobaptist  immersionists,  in  whole  or 
in  part,  after  1641,  had  not  always  been  such;  for 
some  of  them  in  whole  or  in  part,  came  directly 
from  the  Pedobaptists  after  1641. 

3.  So  far  as  the  records  show,  immersion  "had  for 
some  time  been  disused"  in  England  before  1()41; 
for  up  to  that  time  "none  had  so  practiced  in  Eng- 
land to  professed  believers." 

4.  Neither  before  nor  after  1641,  so  far  as  I  know, 
has  any  one  considered  Pedobaptist  communities  or 
churches  "/w  Irajisiiion'  as  typical  or  real  Baptist 
churches,  unless  Crosby  and  other  English  his- 
torians so  regarded  the  Jessey  church. 

5.  Not  only  "many  of  the  mixed  and  some  of  the 
distinct  Baptist  churches  of  to-day,"  in  lOngland, 
sprang  from  Independent  bodies,  since   1<)41;  but, 


84  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

before  1641,  the  orig-inal  churches  upon  which  were 
founded  the  General  and  Particular  Baptist  denomi- 
nations in  Eng-land,  sprang-  from  Independent  bodies, 
according-  to  their  history. 

I  grant  with  Dr.  Thomas  that  Independency  in 
England  owes  its  origin  to  Anabaptist  ideas  and 
polity;  that  the  two  bodies  were  clearly  affiliated  at 
first;  that,  after  the  Dutch  Anabaptists  left  Eng- 
land, there  were  possibly  many  Anabaptists  indi- 
vidually "intermixed,"  as  Crosby  says,  with  the 
Congreg-ationalists,  who  beg-an  to  separate,  1633  and 
onward,  and  form  churches  of  their  own  persuasion; 
but  there  is  nothing  in  history  to  show  among-  them 
"composite  churches,"  as  such,  in  Eng-land,  until 
after  1641.  Whether  there  were  any  such  churches 
or  not,  or  whether  all  were  such  or  not,  before  1641, 
there  is  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  immersion 
among  them;  and  it  is  more  than  probable,  if  we 
had  no  direct  testimony  on  the  subject,  that  the 
Anabaptists  "intermixed"  with  the  Independents, 
before  1641,  were  like  their  Congregational  brethren 
in  the  mode  of  baptism,  which  was  unquestionably 
aspersion.  The  earliest  intimation  of  a  composite 
church  I  know  of  was  that  of  Llanvaches  in  Wales, 
whither  Mr.  Jessey  was  sent,  it  is  said,  in  1639,  to 
assist  Mr.  Wroth.  Afterwards  it  was  called,  "A 
church  of  Independents  and  Baptists  mixed,  yet 
united  in  communion;  they  had  two  ministers,  co- 
pastors — Mr.  Wroth,  an  Independent,  and  Mr.  Wil- 
liam Thomas,  a  Baptist"  (Broadmead  Records,  p. 
7 ) ;  but  bv  the  use  of  the  word  '  'Baptists"  it  is  evident 
that  the  existence  of  the  mixed  church,  as  such, 
must  have  dated  its  beginning  after  1641. 

Dr.  Thomas  admits  the  "lack"  of  documentar-v" 
evidence  of  historic  continuity  of  Anti-Pedobaptist 
immersion  among  the  early  Lollards,  the  later 
Dutch,  and  the  still  later  Eng-lish  Baptists;"  and  he 
might  have  admitted  what  is  true,  that  there  is  no 
documentary  evidence  of  immersion  among-  them  at 


The  Burden  of  Proof.  85 

all,  to  say  nothing- of  "'continuity^''''  until  the  Eng- 
lish Baptists  beg^an  to  immerse  in  1641.  It  is  true 
that  Anabaptism  was  a  '"''rcligio  illicita^  in  Eng-land, 
hiding  in  "forests/'  "g-ardeas"  and  "cellars,"  until 
1641;  but  if  the  Anabaptists  had  practiced  im- 
mersion, the  "paucity  of  recorded  testimony,''  would 
have  been  as  full  of  this  fact  as  of  other  recorded 
practices  and  doctrines  by  which  they  are  clearly 
and  voluminously  distinguished.  Especially  is  this 
true,  if,  as  Dr.  Thomas  says,  "Up  to  the  "Westmin- 
ister Assembly  all  religious  bodies  in  England 
recog-nized  and  even  insisted  upon  immersion  as 
normal  baptism."  The  practice  of  immersion  by 
the  English  Anabaptists,  if  such  were  the  case,  up 
to  1641,  would  have  at  least  no  more  endangered 
them  than  other  peculiarities  well  known.  Such, 
however,  was  not  true  of  believers'  immersion;  and 
if  they  had  practiced  it  before  1641,  as  they  did 
afterwards,  we  should  have  heard  of  it  in  tones  of 
thunder  and  in  flashes  of  lightning.  It  is  not  the 
history  given  by  their  enemies  that  robs  the  Ana- 
baptists of  immersion  before  1641  in  England:  it  is 
Baptist  history  which  records  the  fact  that  such  a 
practice  did  not  exist  among  them — that  immersion 
"had  for  some  time  been  disused"  before  1641 — that 
^^nonc  had  then  so  practiced  in  England  to  professed 
believers" — that  the  practice  had  been  "so  long 
disused"  that  "there  was  no  one  to  be  found  who 
had  so  been  baptized." 

Dr.  Thomas  says:  "The  emphasis  laid  upon  the 
fact  that  nobody  has  anywhere  brought  forward  one 
instance  of  clearly  demonstrated  immersion  among 
early  Baptists,  and  the  intimation  that  the  holders 
of  the  new  theory  give  themselves  no  concern  until 
this  is  done,  indicates  a  curious  misapprehension  as 
to  the  burden  of  proof.  .  .  .  To  make  good  his 
charge,  as  formulated  at  the  beginning.  Dr.  Whitsitt 
is  bound  to  show,  either  by  afi&rmative  demonstration 
of  the  exclusive  practice  of  sprinkling,  or  pouring, 


86  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsltt  Question. 

or  otherwise,  that,  up  to  the  date  mentioned,  im- 
mersion had  never  been  practiced  among"  the  Bap- 
tists of  Eng-land.  Individual  instances  of  sprink- 
ling- among"  Continental  Anabaptists  have  been  ad- 
duced, but  I  do  not  recall  any  such  in  England. 
The  holders  of  the  current  opinion  may,  therefore, 
well  retort  that,  until  one  instance  of  early  sprink- 
ling among"  Baptists  is  clearly  demonstrated,  to  say 
nothing-  of  meeting  the  larger  theorem,  they  certain- 
ly 'need  give  themselves  no  concern.'  "  Dr.  Thomas 
then  cites  the  instance  given  in  Edward's  "Gan- 
gra^na"  that  "on  the  12th  of  Nov.  last,  (1640),  there 
met  a  matter  of  80  Anabaptists  (many  of  them  be- 
longing- to  the  church  of  one  Barber)  in  a  great 
house  in  Bishopg-ate  Street,  and  had  a  love  feast, 
when  five  new  members  lately  dipt  were  present, 
&c." 

Dr.  Thomas  does  not  press  this  instance  of  im- 
mersion (1640)  because  it  is  ''fragmentary;"  but,  be- 
fore discussing  the  "burden  of  proof,"  let  us  grant 
that  the  incident  is  true.  November  12,  1640,  is 
but  a  little  less  than  two  months  from  January  9, 
1641,  when  Blunt  introduced  immersion  from  Hol- 
land, according  to  the  original  Kiffin  Manuscript, 
or  the  Jessey  Records;  and  Dr.  Newman  has  well 
suggested  that  the  Anti-successionists  may  have 
begun  to  immerse,  according  to  their  theory  and 
method,  upon  the  ag"itation  for  the  restoration  of 
immersion  by  Blunt  and  others.  May  3rd,  mo.,  1640. 
Practically  the  Gangraena  incident,  even  if  true  as 
to  date  or  fact,  does  not  affect  Dr.  Whitsitt's  thesis.  * 


*It  was  Jan.  (nth  mo.)  1640,  (O.  S.),  1641,  (N.  S.),when  Blunt  and 
Blacklock  baptized  the  seceding-  members  of  Jessey"s  and  Spilsbury's 
congreg-ations;  and,  iu  the  light  of  the  Kiffln  Manuscript  and  the  Crosby 
Account,  it  is  probable  that  Nov,  12,  1040,  (O.  S.).  was  Nov.  12,  1641, 
(N.  S  ),  when  the  "five  new  members'' were  "lately  dipt."  Whether  or 
not  this  be  true,  it  is  probable,  according-  to  Dr.  Newman,  that  the  Blunt 
agitation.  May,  1640,  had  led  the  Anti-successionists  to  the  introduction 
of  immersion  before  Blunt  returned  from  the  Netherlands,  according- 
to  the  theory  and  method  of  Spilsbury  and  others  who  repudiated  the 
succession  scheme — the  Blunt  tlieory  and  method  having  historic  pre» 
cedence  on  account  of  priority  of  movement  and  ag-itation. 


The  Burden  of  Proof.  87 

But  now  as  to  the  "burden  of  proof."  I  reply 
that  Dr.  Whitsitt,  if  from  no  other  standpoint,  has 
made  out  his  case  upon  the  g-round  of  circumstantial 
evidence;  and  conviction  upon  that  groud  may  be  as 
strong-  and  legitimate  as  by  direct  testimon3---if, 
which  is  not  true,  such  had  been  wanting  in  the  case. 
Nobody  has  proven  by  documentary  evidence  the 
existence  of  a  single  case  of  immersion  among  the 
Baptists  of  England  before  1640-41,  the  period 
claimed  by  Dr.  Whitsitt,  even  upon  probability;  but 
it  IS  also  claimed  that  he  has  not  proved  a  single 
case  of  sprinkling,  or  pouring,  among  them  before 
that  time.  Evans  holds  to  the  probability  upon 
documentary  evidence,  that  the  English  Anabap- 
tists practiced  aspersion  before  that  period — and 
Dr.  Armitage  holds  likewise  with  some  of  thcra. 
Besides  this,  the  Kiffin  Manuscript  makes  the  nega- 
tive declaration  that  "none,"  up  to  that  time,  had 
"practiced"  immersion  in  England  to  "professed 
believers;"  and  while  this  is  a  negative  declaration, 
it  implies  the  positive  affirmation  that  immersion, 
in  England,  had,  up  to  1641,  been  abandoned,  or 
disused  among  the  Baptists  as  "believers"  baptism. 
In  confirmation  of  this  fact,  and  in  the  use  of  the 
Kiffin  Manuscript  and  other  documents,  Crosby  pos- 
itively affirms  that,  up  to  the  Blunt  Movement,  im- 
mersion in  England  "had  for  some  time  been  dis- 
used." He  quotes  writers  who  speak  of  its  "gener- 
al," or  "universal  corruption,"  and  he  goes  on  to 
show  that  it  was  restored  by  the  "English  Bap- 
tists," according  to  Kiffin  and  other  writers.  Bamp- 
field,  evidently  referring  to  the  same  event,  posi- 
tively confirms  the  fact  that  immersion  in  ICngland 
had  been  "so  long  disused"  that  there  were  none  to 
be  found  who  had  been  "so  baptized."  The  great 
controversy  which  followed  its  introduction,  after 
1641,  goes  to  show  that  it  was  a  "novelty"  among 
the  Baptists — charged  by  Pedobaptists  and  ad- 
mitted and  defended  by  Baptists  whom  Crosb}'  shows 


88  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  ]Vhitsiit  Question. 

had  a  baptismal  "reformation"  and  "beginning"  at 
this  time. 

If  this  is  not  about  as  clear  a  case  as  could  be 
made  out,  both  from  circumstantial  and  positive 
evidence,  then  I  do  not  know  what  a  clear  case  is 
upon  what  seems  to  me  more  than  probable  testi- 
mony. How,  then,  does  the  case  stand  when 
summed  up? 

1.  Negatively  it  is  shown  that  immersion,  as  be- 
lievers' baptism,  was  not  practiced  by  the  Baptists 
of  England  before  1641;  and  positively  that  as 
such  it  had  become  "disused,"  "corrupted,"  "de- 
stroyed," "raced  out"  before  that  time. 

2.  But  the  Baptists  were  baptizing  before  that 
period,  since  we  know  that  some  had  received  a 
"further"  or  a  "new  baptism"  on  leaving  the  Jacob 
Church,  and  that  Spilsbury  "baptized  Sam  Eaton 
and  others." 

3.  Therefore,  if  immersion  as  believers'  baptism 
was  "disused"  before  1641,  the  Baptists  who  bap- 
tized, nevertheless,  must  have  practiced  aspersion  or 
affusion  for  baptism,  as  Dr.  Evans  clearly  shows  to 
be  probable. 

But  it  is  claimed,  after  all,  that  this  was  but  an 
opinion,  ab  ignorantia,  and  that  this  universal 
declaration  is  not  susceptible  of  proof,  since  there 
might  have  been  some  churches  or  individuals  un- 
known in  England  who  were  practicing  believers 
immersion  before  1641.  That  may  be  possible,  but 
the  declaration  is  sufficient  for  all  historical  pur- 
poses from  what  was  generally  known  of  the  facts 
in  the  case,  and  so  far  as  they  related  to  the  Baptist 
Churches  then  recognized,  and  from  whom  Baptist 
history,  as  such,  is  made  up.  If  there  were  any  ex- 
ceptions to  the  "general"  or  "universal  corruption" 
of  immersion  as  believers'  baptism  in  England,  they 
were  unknown  to  history  at  the  time;  and  if  those 
exceptions  have  not  been  discovered  since,  the  his- 
tory, as  such,  stands  good.     Even  if  you  could  prove 


The  Burden  of  Proof.  89 

the  exception  to  the  g-eneral  fact  declared,  it  would 
in  no  way  affect  the  history  of  the  case,  as  it  applies 
to  the  General  and  Particular  Baptists  of  Eng-land. 
Their  fifty  churches  at  1641  come  under  this  g-eneral 
declaration;  and  they  were  constituently  called  the 
♦'Baptists  of  England,"  the  "English  Baptists"  who, 
Crosby  says,  restored  immersion,  as  believers'  bap- 
tism in  England  at  the  time  of  Blunt,  which  was 
1640-41 .  If  there  were  any  other  churches  then  prac- 
ticing immersion  in  England,  there  is  no  evidence 
of  the  fact;  and  what  is  claimed  for  a  few  of  such, 
upon  tradition,  certainly  did  not  then  appear,  and 
cut  no  figure  in  the  restoration  movement.  If  such 
are  now  numbered  with  the  English  Baptist  body, 
they  were  absorbed  in  it  after  1641,  and  they  con- 
stitute no  basis  upon  which  to  found  baptismal  or 
church  succession  which  Crosby  shows  the  great 
Baptist  body  repudiated  at  their  revival  of  immersion 
in  England.  Such  a  claim  at  that  time,  as  to  bap- 
tism, was  only  made  by  the  smaller  movement  of 
Blunt  and  those  with  him;  and  they  received  it  from 
a  foreign  country  in  1641,  because  it  could  not  be 
found  in  England,  according  to  Kiffin,  Hutchinson. 
Bampfield,  Crosby  and  others.  Historically  speak- 
ing. Dr.  Whitsitt's  thesis  is  clearly  established  both 
upon  negative  and  positive  testimony — consistent 
all  the  way  through. 


CHAPTER  XL 


Evans,  Muller,  de  Hoop  Scheffer. 


DR.  THOMAS  (pp.  51-58)  seeks  to  break  the 
force  of  Evans,  Muller  and  de  Hoop  Scheffer, 
as  authority  in  favor  of  Dr.  Whitsitt's  thesis,  that 
the  Dutch  Anabaptists  were  not  immersionists,  and 
that  Smyth,  Helwisse  and  Company  wereaffusionists 
after  the  manner  of  the  Mennonite  brethren.  What- 
ever the  view  of  Evans  that  some  of  the  Dutch 
Baptists  practiced  immersion,  at  the  time  in  ques- 
tion, he  ag-rees  with  Muller  that  the  Smyth  faction 
which  had  been  "self- baptized"  joined  the  Nether- 
land  Waterlanders  who  were  Arminians  in  the 
doctrine  of  salvation  and  aff usionists  in  the  practice 
of  baptism,  no  difference  having  been  found  between 
them  in  theolog^y,  church  g-overnment,  nor  in  the 
design  and  mode  of  baptism.  Those  who  had  not 
already  been  baptized  were  received  by  "sprinkling-;" 
and  the  log-ical  inference  is  that  those  of  the 
faction  already  baptized  had  been  sprinkled.  '  'Birds 
of  a  feather  flock  tog-ether."  If  Smyth  and  his 
party  had  been  immersionists  they  would  not  have 
soug-ht  membership  in  a  sprinkling  church — espe- 
cially if,  as  Dr.  Thomas  assumes,  they  were  sur- 
rounded by  Dutch  Baptists  who  exclusively  im- 
mersed, and  to  whom  they  could  have  more  con- 
sistently applied  for  membership.  No  immersion 
Baptist  church,  or  faction  of  the  same,  ever  yet 
joined  a  church  of  sprinklers  under  the  confession, 
or  otherwise,  that  there  was  no  difference  between 
them  and  the  sprinklers  in  doctrine  nor  practice. 
Baptists  of  1641  went  from  aspersion  to  immersion; 
but  there  never  was  a  Baptist  body,  seeking  as 

(90) 


Evans,  Muller,  de  Hoop  Scheffer.  91 

Smyth  was  for  "succession,"  that  went  backwards 
from  immersion  to  sprinkling-  to  find  it. 

Dr.  Thomas  does  not  deny  that  the  Mennonite 
Waterlanders  sprinkled,  nor  that  the  unbaptized 
portion  of  Smyth's  party  were  sprinkled.  In  fact, 
Dr.  Muller  says:  "This  mode  of  baptism  was  from 
the  days  of  Menno  the  only  usual  mode  amongst  us. 
The  Waterlanders  nor  any  of  the  various  parties 
of  the  Netherland  Doopsgczinden  (Baptists;  prac- 
ticed at  any  time  immersion."  Nevertheless,  Dr. 
Thomas  seems  to  think  that  Dr.  Muller  qualifies 
himself  in  the  added  sentence  which  says:  "But 
they  (the  Waterlanders)  cared  only  for  the  very 
nature  of  the  baptism,  (as  founded  on  full  ages)  and 
were  therefore  willing-  to  admit  those  who  were 
baptized  by  a  mode  differing  from  t/icirs,  just  as  we 
are  wonted  to  do  nowadays."  He  seems  to  think 
that  this  sentence  might  imply  that  Smyth  and  his 
followers  who  had  alread)'  been  baptized  and  so  re- 
ceived were  immersed;  that  immersion  would  have 
been  regarded  by  the  Waterlanders  as  not  of  any 
material  difference  in  "form  and  foundation"  with 
sprinkling;  that  the  "usual"  practice  of  the  Men- 
nonites  had  been  sprinkling,  but  immersion,  though 
not  ordinarily  practiced,  was  not  wholly  rejected; 
and  that  the  observations  of  Dr.  Muller  were  here 
limited  simply  to  the  Doopsgezinden  who  com- 
prised only  a  single  section  of  the  Netherland 
Anabaptists.     To  all  of  which  I  reply: 

1.  It  is  impossible  for  Dr.  Muller  to  mean  that 
Smith  or  his  followers  already  baptized  and  so 
received  by  the  Waterlanders,  had  been  immersed, 
since  "no  difference,"  in  the  one  thing  nor  the  other, 
was  found  between  them  in  the  '''foiDidation  and 
form''  (design  and  mode)  of  baptism,  to  begin  with. 
They  were  alike  in  theory  that  baptism  belonged  to 
believers  only — the  "very  nature"  or  design  of  the 
ordinance;  but  while  this  theory  might  have  been 
equally  applicable  to  sprinkling  and   immersion  in 


92  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

the  conception  of  the  Waterlanders,  Dr.  Muller 
does  not  imply  for  this  reason  that  though  the  form 
was  immaterial  there  was  no  difference  in  form;  nor 
that  there  was  any  difference  in  the  form  of  baptism 
between  them  and  Smyth's  party  already  baptized. 
Besides  this,  Evans  (vol.  II.,  p.  52)  says  that  Dr. 
Muller  ^'' fully  agrees'''  with  Ash  ton,  the  editor  of 
Robinson's  Works,  (vol.  III.,  p.  461)  who  says: 
"Immersion  baptism  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
practiced  or  pleaded  for  by  either  Smyth  or  Helwisse, 
the  alleged  founder  of  the  General  Baptist  denomi- 
nation in  Kng-land.  Nothing"  appears  in  these  con- 
troversial writings  to  warrant  the  supposition  that 
they  regarded  immersion  as  the  proper  and  only 
mode  of  administering  the  ordinance.  Incidental 
allusions  there  are,  in  their  own  works  and  in  the 
replies  of  Robinson,  that  the  baptism  performed  on 
himself,  must  have  been  rather  by  effusion  or 
pouring." 

2.  While  the  Waterlanders  evidently  regarded  no 
^''material  difference"  between  sprinkling  and  im- 
mersion as  to  the  '•''very  nature''''  of  baptism,  it  is 
clear  that  they  did  recognize  a  formal  difference 
which,  if  it  had  existed  between  them  and  Smyth's 
party,  they  would  have  expressed  it. 

3.  The  mode  of  baptism,  according  to  Dr.  Muller, 
among  the  Mennonites,  was  then  as  noxv  the  "usual" 
mode;  but,  says  he:  "The  Waterlanders,  (to  whom 
the  Smyth  party  joined)  nor  any  other  of  the  various 
parties  of  the  Netherland  Doopsgezinden  practiced 
at  any  time  baptism  by  immersion;"  and  whatever 
the  implication  by  the  word  "usual"  that  there 
might  have  been  some  exception  to  the  rule  of 
sprinkling  among  the  Dutch  Baptists  in  general, 
then  as  now,  it  is  explicitly  affirmed  that  the  Water- 
landers and  all  the  parties  of  the  Netherland 
Doopsgezinden^  from  the  days  of  Menno,  always 
without  exception,  sprinkled. 

4.  Hence,  it  is  not  clear  that  Dr.  Muller  confines 


Evans,  Muller,  de  Hoop  Scheffer.  93 

his  observations  simply  to  the  Waterlanders  since  he 
uses  this  lang-uag-e:  "This  mode  of  baptizing- was, 
from  the  days  of  Meimo,  the  only  usna/  mode  among-st 
t/ictn,  and  still  is  amongst  ?^5;"  and  then,  without 
the  qualification  of  "usual,''^  he  shows  that  the 
Netherland  Doopsgczmden  sprinkled  altog^ether. 
He  seems  to  refer  to  the  mode  of  baptism  among- 
the  Mennonites  in  g-eneral  and  among-  the  Water- 
landers  in  particular;  or  else  there  is  no  significance 
implied  in  the  use  of  the  qualifying-  term  ''usual.''' 

What  then  is  the  sig-nificance  of  the  added  sen- 
tence: "But  they  cared  only  for  the  very  nature  of 
baptism,  and  were  therefore  willing-  to  admit  those 
who  were  baptized  by  a  mode  differing  from  theirs, 
just  as  we  are  wonted  to  do  now-a-days?"  In  the 
intervening-  sentence  he  shows  that  no  exception 
was  made  in  sprinkling-  the  English,  and  that,  if 
there  had  been,  it  is  "more  than  probable  that  the 
memorial  would  have  made  mention  of  the  altera- 
tion," and  it  is  evident  that  Dr.  Muller  was  seeking- 
to  emphasize  the  fact  to  Dr.  Evans  that  sprinkling- 
and  not  immersion  was  the  mode  not  only  by  which 
the  unbaptized  portion  of  Smyth's  party  was  received 
by  the  Waterlanders,  but  that  this  was  the  mode  of 
those  already  baptized — their  being-  found  "no  dif- 
ference' between  them  as  to  design  or  mode.  The 
added  sentence  seems  to  be  appended  only  to  ex- 
plain, nevertheless,  that  the  Waterlanders  then,  as 
the  Mennonites  now,  were  not  illiberal  or  narrow  in 
the  matter;  that  they  reg-arded  only  "the  very  na- 
ture''"'  of  baptism  as  the  essence  of  the  ordinance;  and 
that,  other  things  being-  equal,  the  English  would 
have  been  received,  though  "baptized  by  a  mode 
differing-  from  theirs,"  if  it  had  not  been  true  that 
there  was  already  "no  difference"  between  them 
in  the  "foundation  and  form,"  the  design  and  mode 
of  baptism  when  received.  Otherwise  Dr.  Muller 
would  contradict  himself;  and  otherwise  it  would  be 
impossible  for  him  to  '•'fully  agree"''  with  the  editor 


94  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B  Thomas  on  the  Whitsilt  Question. 

of  Robinson's  Works  that  Smyth  and  Helwisse  appear 
neither  to  have  pleaded  for,  nor  practiced  immersion, 
and  that  Smyth  was  self-baptized  by  affusion  and 
not  immersion. 

Dr.  Thomas  concludes  that  there  is  nothing-  here 
in  conflict  with  the  affirmation  of  Evans  "that  there 
were  a  portion  of  the  Dutch  Baptists  (at  the  time  in 
question)  who  uniformly  administered  baptism  by 
immersion."  In  the  same  note  he  might  have 
quoted  the  editor  of  Robinson's  Works  (vol.  I,  p.  203) 
who  asserts  that  Smyth  and  his  party  were  "sur- 
rounded by  Dutch  Baptists  who  uniformly  adminis- 
tered baptism  by  immersion;"  but  on  this  point  both 
Kvans  and  Ashtcn  are  evidently  in  conflict  with 
Muller  and  de  Hoop  Scheffer  who  have  made  a  study 
of  the  subject  from  the  archives  of  the  Mennonites 
themselves.  From  the  same  page  onward,  howev- 
er, Evans  proceeds  to  lay  before  us  the  facts  and 
arguments  at  leng-th  by  which  he  at  last  concludes 
(vol.  II,  p.  52)  that  the  probabilities  are  g-reatly  in 
favor  of  the  "opinion  expressed"  by  the  editor  of 
Robinson's  Works,  with  whom,  he  says,  "Dr.  Mul- 
ler ftilly  agrees.''''  If  anything-  is  clear,  it  is  that 
both  Evans  and  Muller  are  of  the  "opinion,"  the 
"conclusion  more  than  warranted,"  that  Smyth, 
Helwisse  and  their  followers  were  self-baptized  by 
affusion,  and  that  the  Dutch  Anabaptists  with 
whom  the  Smyth  party  joined  and  with  whom  the 
Helwisse  Churches  continued  to  affiliate  up  to  1641 
in  Eng-land,  practiced  sprinkling-  for  baptism,  as  al- 
ready shown  heretofore. 

The  opinion  of  Price  that  Smyth  was  convinced 
that  immersion  was  the  scriptural  mode  of  baptism, 
and  so  broke  with  the  Brownists — the  opinion  of 
Masson  that  the  "Helwisse  folk  differed  from  the 
Independents  on  the  subject  of  dipping"  have  no 
foundation  except  in  the  "oral  tradition"  which  Dr. 
Thomas  says  Crosby  followed  on  the  subject.  That 
"oral  tradition"  has  been  swept  away  by  the  histor- 


Evans,  Muller,  de  Hoop  Scheffer.  95 

ical  research  of  Evans,  Muller,  Ashton,  de  Hoop 
Scheffer,  Dexter,  Whitsitt,  Newman,  Vedder,  Burr- 
ag-e  and  others,  and  by  the  very  writings  and  con- 
fession of  Smyth  himself.  Smyth  and  his  followers 
join  in  the  confession  of  self- baptism  in  Holland; 
and  when  charged  with  self-baptism  Smyth  ar- 
gued against  his  opponents  without  denying  the 
charge,  that  '"''for  haptizina;  a  dudi's  self  there  is  as 
good  warrant  as  for  a  man  cJuirchimj;  himself^* 

In  none  of  the  writings  and  confessions  of  Smyth 
and  Helwisse,  however  they  repudiate  infant 
baptism  and  defend  believers'  baptism,  do  they 
anywhere  prescribe  immersion  as  did  the  Po- 
land Anabaptists  1574,  the  Collegiants,  1620, 
and  the  English  Baptists,  1644,  by  specific  articles 
of  faith.  It  is  simply  incredible  that  Smyth  should 
break  with  the  Brownists — that  Helwisse  should 
antagonize  the  Independents — in  favor  of  immersion 
as  opposed  to  sprinkling,  in  favor  of  believers' 
baptism  as  opposed  to  infant  baptism,  and  yet  de- 
fine themselves  distinctly  as  to  the  subjects  of  bap- 
tism without  reference  to  the  mode,  when  the  mode 
was  just  as  much  a  matter  of  difference  between 
them  as  the  subjects.  It  will  not  do  to  argue,  even 
if  it  were  true,  that  in  Holland  Smyth  was  sur- 
rounded by  immersing  Anabaptists — that  immer- 
sion prevailed  in  the  English  Church — and  that, 
therefore,  Smyth  and  Helwisse  took  immersion  for 
granted.  If  they  were  in  conflict  with  sprinkling 
among  the  Brownists  and  Independents  they  could 
not,  as  to  them,  take  immersion  for  granted;  and 
even  if  they  had,  we  should  discover  somewhere 
that  they  opposed  sprinkling  just  as  well  as  infant 
baptism  which  would  have  implied  that  they  were 


♦The  fact  that  the  English  Baptists  seek  to  find  their  oriR-i"  i"  the 
Epworth  and  Crowle  fraud  by  such  writers  as  John  Clifford  and  others 
of  the  present  day  (The  Eiitrlish  JSaptisls.  etc.,  p.  16),  shows  the  ulter 
unri'liabilily  of  liaptisi  liistory  at  llic  liaiuls  of  ])arlizaii  authority.  John 
Smyth  was  certainly  a  Pedoliaptist  in  UKHi  accordinir  to  hisown  writinifs, 
and  he  certainly  never  was  immersed  in  the  river  l)nn  hy  John  Morton. 


96  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

immersionists,  which  is  not  the  case.  Think  of 
Smyth,  an  immersionist,  after  a  conflict  with  the 
Brownisis  upon  the  subject  of  sprinkling-,  at  last 
seeking-  membership  in  a  sprinkling  Mennonite 
Church;  and  that,  too,  when  surrounded  by  immers- 
ing Anabaptist  Churches!  The  whole  thing  is  ab- 
surd. 

Dr.  Thomas  very  sarcastically  disposes  of  de 
Hoop  Scheffer.  He  is  characterized  as  a  "writer  un- 
duly athletic  in  fancy"  and  ''paralytic  in  vision  of 
historical  fact" — a  "notable  savant"  badly  affected 
with  "intellectual  strabismus" — illustrated  by  his 
general  survey  of  baptismal  history  and  specifically- 
cognizant  in  his  affirmations  with  reference  to  Uoli- 
mann  and  the  Polish  Anabaptists.  Except  in  this 
form  Dr.  Thomas  does  not  attempt,  under  this  head, 
to  meet  the  affirmations  of  Scheffer  with  reference 
to  a  "questioned  date  in  English  history, "nor  with 
reference  to  the  "final  solution  of  problems  of  conti- 
nental breadth"  concerning  the  baptismal  question. 
So  far  as  I  can  see,  neither  here  nor  elsewhere  does 
Dr.  Thomas  assail  the  positions  of  Scheffer  or  any- 
other  author  quoted  by  Dr.  Whitsitt  except  by  hy- 
pothetical inferences  which  aim  to  neutralize  rather 
than  directly  disprove  a  thesis,  the  probabilities  of 
which,  at  least,  have  the  show  of  g-reat  credibility. 
He  neither  proves  that  the  example  of  Uolimann's 
immersion  in  the  Rhine  tvas  followed  by  any  other 
person,  nor  that  the  adoption  of  immersion  by  the 
Polish  Anabaptists  was  not  due  to  local  influences  or 
to  the  neighborhood  of  the  Greek  Church.  Scheffer 
certainly  has,  by  means  of  the  Dutch  Archives, 
thrown  great  lig-ht  upon  the  subject  of  early  Dutch 
and  English  Baptist  baptism — proving  that  it  was 
affusion;  and,  in  g-eneral,  he  seems  confirmed  by  the 
late  work  of  Dr.  Newman  on  the  History  of  Anti- 
pedobaptism,  in  the  fact  that  affusion  and  not  im- 
mersion was  the  usual  practice  of  the  Anabaptists 
on  the  Continent  early  in  the  Sixteenth  century.     As 


Evans,  Muller,  de  Hoop  Scheffer.  97 

to  the  two  dates  which  he  fixed  for  the  restoration  of 
immersion  in  Eng-land,  like  any  scholar,  he  was 
liable  to  mistake  in  his  original  investigation,  but 
like  the  true  scholar,  he  changed  his  view  upon  a 
second  and  more  patient  investigation  under  the 
suggestions  of  Dr.  Whitsitt. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  for  Baptists  to  wholly  reject 
the  historical  testimony  of  those  we  are  disposed  to 
regard  as  our  enemies  who  sometimes  tell  the  truth. 
It  is  equally  as  great  a  mistake  to  wholly  adopt  ev- 
ery thing  our  own  partizan  historians  naturally  say 
of  us.  The  truth  generally  lies  between  the  ex- 
tremes of  partizan  statement  on  both  sides  of  dis- 
puted questions  in  Baptist  history.  I  delight  in 
finding  Baptists  and  Baptist  history  in  every  Chris- 
tian age  and  country;  but  through  the  mists  of  ob- 
scure periods  and  conflicting  testimony,  it  behooves 
us  to  weigh  carefully  and  judge  impartially,  as  well 
what  our  enemies  say  as  what  we  ourselves  want  to 
believe.  Our  enemies  do  not  always  lie — and  we  do 
not  always  tell  the  truth. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Dutch  Anti-Pedobaptism. 


DR.  THOMAS  (pp.  59  74)  deals  more  directly 
with  Continental  and  Dutch  Antipedobaptism. 
He  does  not  stop  to  discuss  Lollardism  or  the  Eng-- 
lish  Anabaptists  during  the  early  reig-n  of  Henry 
Vni  who,  he  rightly  says,  could  not  have  been 
Mennonites;  for,  as  Dr.  Newman  says,  the  early 
Anabaptists  of  England  were  'of  the  Hoffmanite 
type"  and  the  later  were  "of  the  Mennonite  type" — 
both  affusionists. 

1.  Dr.  Thomas  assumes  that  "it  is  yet  too  early 
to  attempt  a  positive  account  of  their  doings  and 
wholly  impossible  to  verify  sweeping  negations 
against  them."  He  may  be  partly  correct  as  to  this 
proposition;  and  I  see  no  reason  to  differ  with  him 
in  what  he  quotes  from  Cornelius,  Keller  and  Griflis. 
I  believe  with  them  that  the  evangelical  life  which 
projected  the  Reformation  was  Anabaptist;  and  I 
am  proud  to  accept  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  is  "an  Anabaptist  Docurrient." 
I  grant  also  that  the  word  "dip"  is  only  the  Dutch 
"fl?<9C^(;w,"  the  German  ^Haufen'^''  and  that  whether 
"everybody  dipped"  or  not  when  these  words  were 
first  introduced  in  Bible  translation,  it  was  under- 
stood that  they  meant  "dip."  The  Catholics,  the 
Reformers  themselves,  Luther,  Zuingle,  Melanc- 
thon,  Casaubon,  Grotius,  Jurieu,  all  admitted  that 
baptism  in  the  Scriptures  meant  to  "dip,"  though 
they  practiced  to  the  contrary.  The  Roman  Catho- 
lics so  teach  to- day,  as  then.  No  doubt  the  early 
Anabaptists,  if  not  the  later,  so  understood  the 
meaning  of  the  word,  as  their  literature  usually 
shows;  but  the  facts  of   history  demonstrate  that 

(98) 


Dutch   Aiiti-Pedobaptism.  99 

the  Anabaptists  g-enerally,  like  the  Catholics  and 
Reformers  of  the  Sixteenth  Century,  did  not  regard 
immersion  as  the  sole  and  only  mode  of  baptism,  so 
far  as  their  practice  was  concerned. 

2.  I  see  no  reason  to  disag-ree  with  Dr.  Thomas 
in  the  probability  that  the  Holland  Anabaptists  and 
those  of  South  Germany  may  have  had  a  derivative 
connection  with  the  Swiss  Anabaptists.     Grant  also 
that  Grebel  and  Manz  visited  Munster  in  1523;  that 
Hoffman   and   Rink   spent  half    a  year  at  Zurich; 
that  they  had  been   the   disciples   of    Grebel   and 
Manz;  that  Hoffman  and  Rink  were  the  fathers  of 
the    Holland    Anabaptism;    and    yet    there   is   no 
evidence  that   they  ever   introduced   immersion  in 
Holland  as  the  result  of  their  Swiss  discipleship  un- 
derGrebeland  Manz  at  Zurich.    After  the  council  at 
Zurich,  about  December  1624,  the  Anabaptist  leaders 
proceeded  to  "introduce  believer's  baptism,"  led  by 
Grebel,  who  first  baptized  Blaurock,  who  in  turn 
baptized   larg-e   numbers,  all  by  pouring-.     At  the 
same  time  Manz  baptized  Bruggbach  and  others  by 
pouring  from  a  dipper  of  water.     In  April,   1525, 
Uolimann,    not   content   with    being    poured    upon 
from  a  dish,  insisted   upon   being   immersed    in   a 
river  by  Grebel,  who  seems  afterward  to  have  fol- 
lowed the  practice  at  St.  Gall,   (History  Antipedo- 
baptism  by  Newman,  pp.  107,  108,  114,  115).     That 
Manz  ever  immersed  is  not  susceptible  of  historic 
proof;  and  hence  at  the  time  of  Hoffman's  and  Rink's 
visit  to  Zurich  and  of  their  pupilage  under  Grebel 
and  Manz,  which  must  have   occurred   in   1523  or 
1524,   if    at  all,  they  couJd    not   have    become    im- 
mersionists  for  their  great  tutors  were  affusionists 
up  to  the  lime  they  left  Zurich  at  the  close  of  1524. 
This  is  also  evident  in  the  history  of  Hoffman  him- 
self, who  was  not  an  immersionist  but  an  affusionist 
in  practice.* 


*There   is    no    reliable   authority    for   ininiersiou   at   Zurich   as   Dr. 
Thomas   holds;  and    none   such   to   show   that   Manz   was  drowned  on 


100  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  WhltHdt  Question. 

3.  Dr.  Thomas  asserts  that  the  "early  history  of 
the  Anabaptists  of  Holland,  as  well  as  elsewhere, 
distinctly  and  strong-ly  insists  upon  immersion." 
Here,  after  touching-  the  obscurity  of  Anabaptist 
history  and  its  perversion  by  bitter  partizans,  he 
comes  to  the  history  of  the  Mcnnonites,  the  main 
question  at  issue.  The  quotations  from  Hunzig^er 
(1830)  and  from  Spanheim  (1757)  prove  nothing-  in 
the  light  of  specific  facts  to  the  contrary,  drawn 
from  original  sources  by  expert  historians,  who  now 
declare  that  the  Mennonites  never  did  immerse  and 
who,  while  they  still  exist,  do  not  now  immerse. 
Is  it  not  an  incredible  thing-  that  this  body  of 
Christians  should  have  once  been  immersion  Bap- 
tists and  have  afterwards  turned  to  sprinkling? 
Dr.  MuUer,  a  Mennonite  scholar,  affirms  that  neither 
the  "Waterlanders,  nor  any  other  of  the  various 
parties  of  the  Netherland  Doo^sgezinden  practiced 
at  any  time  baptism  by  immersion. "  Prof.  Scheff er, 
another  Dutch  antiquary  and  scholar,  declares  that 
the  Mennonites  never  practiced  immersion.  Drs. 
Evans,  Newman,  Vedder,  Burrage,  Whitsitt,  expert 
Baptist  historians  affirm,  in  the  light  of  the  best 
modern  research,  the  same  proposition. 

But  let  us  come  to  Menno  himself,  to  whom  Dr. 
Thomas  invites  attention  (p.  64).  He  quotes  the 
oft  repeated  passage  from  Menno's  works,  as  follows: 
"Beloved  reader,  take  heed  to  the  word  of  the  Law, 
for  this  also  Paul  teaches,  etc.:  even  as  Christ  died 
and  was  buried,  so  also  ought  we  to  die  unto  our 
sins,  and  be  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  etc., 
(citing  Romans  vi:5-7).  .  .  .  Again,  Paul  calls 
baptism   the   washing   of    reg-eneration !     O  Lord! 


account  of  being  an  immersionist.  He  sprinkled  according-  to  his  own 
teaching  and  practice;  and  the  custom  of  drowning  among  the  Germans 
and  Swiss  had  no  reference  to  immersion  in  Manz's  case,  but  to  the 
practice  of  believer's  baptism  as  opposed  to  infant  baptism.  Drowning- 
was  the  penaltv  for  several  offenses  against  the  State,  such  as  robbery, 
adultery  and  the  like,  and  was  long  in  vogue  before  the  Reformation. 
It  was  especially  employed  against  women,  as  being  the  easiest  mode  of 
execution  by  death. 


Dutch   Anti-Pedobnplism.  101 

how  lamentably  thy  word  is  abused!  Is  it  not 
greatly  to  be  lamented  that  men  are  attempting-, 
notwithstanding-  these  plain  passag-es,  to  maintain 
their  idolatrous  invention  of  infant  baptism,  and 
set  forth  that  infants  are  reg-enerated  thereb}-,  as  if 
regeneration  was  simply  a  plunging-  in  water?" 
Along-  with  this  passage  we  take  another  from 
Menno's  "Foundation  Book,"  (p.  22)  in  which  he 
refers  to  baptism  as  receiving-  a  "handful  of  water," 
which  Dr.  Thomas  concedes  as  "equivocal,"  at 
least;  but  the  Doctor  then  g-oes  on  to  assume,  how- 
ever, that  Menno's  citation  of  Romans  vi:5-7,  is 
determinative  of  the  form  of  baptism  and  is  char- 
acteristic of  Anabaptist  literature  in  all  its  early 
stages.  He  finds  it  in  the  Protocol  of  Emden,  1578; 
in  the  Protocol  of  Frankenthal,  1571,  in  which 
baptism  is  explained  as  the  "symbol  of  death  and 
new  life;"  in  the  Confession  of  Jacques  d'Auchy 
Leeuwarden,  1559;  in  the  Munster  "Restitution," 
1634,  in  which  baptism  is  described  as  the  "burial 
of  the  sinful  flesh;"  and  in  the  Berne  "Dis- 
putation," 1532,  in  which  the  "Touffer"  says:  "Bap- 
tism is  always  a  symbol  of  a  renewed  man  en- 
tombed into  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Before  considering  these  authorities  from  the 
earlier  literature  of  the  Anabaptists,  I  wish  to  add 
another  quoted  and  translated  in  full  along  the  same 
line  by  Dr.  Thomas.  I  allude  to  the  Confession  of 
the  "Two  Sacraments"  issued  by  Rothmann  and  his 
colleag-ues  at  Munster,  1533.  I  need  not  give  the 
whole  translation  secured  by  Dr.  Thomas,  but  I  g-ive 
enoug-h  of  it  to  show  its  characterization  of  the 
entire  literature  of  the  Anabaptists.  It  reads  as  fol- 
lows: "  ]\7/a/  the  zi'ord  chop  means.  Ever}'  Dutsche 
knows,  of  course,  the  meaning-  of  doepen  (to  dip) 
and  consequently  also  of  doop  and  doopscl  (dipping). 
Doopen  is  as  much  as  to  say  to  dip  or  immerse  in, 
or  hespn'fikliu^-  zvith  water.  Now  this  word  doop, 
by  reason  of  its  natural  signification,  may  be  used 


102  Rrview  of  Dr.  ,/.  7>.  Thomas  on  the  Whilsitt  Question. 

of  all  and  every  kind  of  dipping-.  But  in  the 
Christian  sense  there  is  not  more  than  one  sort  of 
dipping-  in  water,  that  can  be  called  doop,  which  is 
when  a  person  is  dipped  according-  to  the  command 
of  Christ;  otherwise,  if  it  be  done  in  a  manner,  or 
with  intent  differing-  from  what  Christ  and  his 
apostles  practiced,  it  may  literally  or  naturally 
be  called  a  doop,  but  it  can  never  be  reg-arded  as 
doop  in  the  Christian  sense,  etc."  Baptism  is  de- 
fined as  an  immersion  in  water,  received  as  a  token 
of  death  to  sin,  buried  with  Christ,  and  a  resurrec- 
tion to  new  life,  just  as  Baptists  reg-ard  it;  and  but 
for  the  sprirkling-  clause  given  in  the  first  part  of 
the  definition,  side  by  side  with  immersion,  this 
confession  would  be  perfect.  Let  us,  however,  view 
the  subject,  as  set  forth  in  all  these  details  of 
Anabaptist  literature,  in  the  lig-ht  of  their  practice 
and  this  will  relieve  the  difficulty  which  shrouds 
the  history  in  question  in  so  much  obscurity  to  the 
minds  of  those  who  have  not  properly  studied  the 
subject. 

1.  Let  us  beg-in  with  the  Rothmann  Confession 
and  go  back  to  Menno.  In  the  first  place  this  con- 
fession, so  far  as  baptism  is  concerned,  is  vitiated 
by  '''' sprinkling"'  which,  notwithstanding-  the  other- 
wise perfect  definition  as  immersion,  is  made  to  oc- 
cupy an  alternative  form  of  baptism;  but  what  is 
more  remarkable,  the  Confession  never  went  into 
effect  at  Munster.  The  authors  of  the  Confession 
were  never  themselves  immersed,  nor  practiced  im- 
mersion; and  according-  to  the  evidence  of  eye  wit- 
nesses the  mode  of  baptism  which  prevailed  at  Mun- 
ster at  the  time  was  by  "pouring-  three  hand  fulls  of 
water  on  the  kneeling-  candidates."  (Hist.  Anti- 
pedobaptism,  p.p.  282,  286);  (Quest,  in  Bap.  Hist., 
p.p.  42-44);  (Cornelius,  Berichte,  etc.,  p.  20). 

2.  Leading-  Anabaptists  of  the  period  in  question 
are  known  to  have  practiced  affusion.  At  Wald- 
shut  (1525)    Hubmair,   the   g-reatest   leader  of   the 


Dutch    Anti-I'edobdptism.  103 

Anabaptist  movement  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
"publicly  baptized  out  of  a  milk  pail  over  300  be- 
lievers." (Hist.  Antipedobaptism,  p.  126).  Plub- 
mair  describes  the  act  of  baptism,  thus:  "To  bap- 
tize t'n  icatcr  is  to  pour  oiitzuai'd  zcater  over  the  con- 
fessor of  his  sins,  in  accordance  with  the  divine 
command,  etc.  So  has  John  baptized."  {.\.  Quest. 
in  History,  p.  36 — quoted  from  Von  dem  Christen- 
lichen,  etc.,  p.  5.)  Hoffman,  the  father  of  the 
Dutch  Anabaptists,  1530,  in  the  sacristy  of  the 
Church  at  Kmden  openly  administered  baptism  by 
pouring  and,  according-  to  Hast,  upon  the  authority 
of  Ubbo  Phillips,  it  is  asserted  that  Hoffman  bap- 
tized 300  persons  out  of  a  large  bucket  on  this  occa- 
sion. (Geschichte,  etc.,  p.  255).  See  also  Hist.  Anti- 
pedobaptism, p.  266,  as  to  Hoffman's  use  of  a  room 
in  a  church  where  he  publicl}^  baptized.  From  the 
writings  of  Hubmair  and  Hoffman,  we  are  led  to 
infer  their  conception  of  baptism  as  immersion  or 
"in  water,"  and  yet  with  the  prevailing  custom  of 
the  time  and  indifference  as  to  mode,  they  practiced 
affusion,  just  as  Rothmann  and  other  leaders  did  at 
Munstcr,  and  just  as  Grebel,  Manz,  Blaurock  and 
others  did  in  Switzerland.  Dr.  Whitsitt  (Quest. 
Bap.  Hist.,  p.p.  44,45),  cites  a  number  of  instances, 
1534-35,  at  Maastricht,  Holland,  where  the  Anabap- 
tists practiced  affusion;  and  so  in  Wessel,  Holland, 
during  the  period  in  question,  according  to  the  au- 
thority of  Joseph  Habets  and  Bouterwek.  In  the 
Canton  of  Berne,  in  Moravia,  in  Austria,  Bavaria, 
Swabia,  Franconia  and  other  countries  on  the  Con- 
tinent the  early  Anabaptists  of  the  Sixteenth  Cen- 
tury practiced  affusion  according  to  Dr.  Newman  in 
hie  review  of  the  "Whitsitt  Controversy"  and  in  his 
"History  of  Antipedobaptism,"  which  is  an  ex- 
haustive and  accurate  research  along  the  line  in 
question. 

3.   This  brings  us  to  Menno  at  a  later  date  when 
he  united  the  broken  fragments  of  the  Anabaptists 


104  Review  of  Dr., J.  B.  Tkovias  on.  ike  Whitsilt  Question. 

under  the  name  of  Mennonites  in  Holland,  1534-35. 
Like  the  rest  he  defines  baptism  in  scriptural  terms 
and  yet  represents  it  as  receiving-  "a  handful  of 
water,"  which  according-  to  Scheffcr  meant  simply 
the  pouring  of  water  which  was  the  custom  of  the 
Anabaptists  during  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  both  in  Switzerland  and  upper  Germany, 
as  a  rule,  and  which  seems  to  have  been  almost,  if 
not,  universal  in  Holland.  Dr.  Newman  (Hist.  An- 
tipedobaptism,  p.  302)  says:  '"It  seems  almost  cer- 
tain that  Menno  did  not  require  or  practice  immer- 
sion. In  his  "Foundation  Book,  (p.  22,  folio  Dutch 
edition  of  his  works)  he  refers  to  the  act  of  baptism 
as  receiving  'a  handful  of  water.'  The  passag-e  in 
his  treatise  on  Christian  Baptism  (p.  400),  some- 
times supposed  to  assert  the  exclusive  validity  of 
immersion  cannot  possibly  be  so  interpreted.  The 
author  is  simply  insisting  upon  believers'  baptism 
as  'the  only  baptism  in  water  that  is  well  pleasing- 
to  God,'  to  the  exclusion  of  infant  baptism.  Yet  in 
this  same  treatise  he  speaks  repeatedly  of  'baptizing- 
in  water,'  and  of  baptism  as  a  'water  bath,'  and  he 
does  not  hesitate  to  employ  the  symbolism  of  burial 
and  resurrection  in  connection  with  the  ordinance. 
On  page  419,  he  repudiates  the  idea  of  the  miserable 
world  (referring  to  his  Pedobaptist  opponents, 
Catholic  and  Protestant),  that  'a  plunging  (duyken) 
in  water,'  is  equivalent  to  the  new  birth.  While 
perfectly  familiar  with  immersion  as  the  primitive 
form  of  baptism,  he  was  probably  content  with  af- 
fusion, the  practice  of  the  later  Mennonites  as  well." 
Thus  it  is  discovered  that  while  the  early  Ana- 
baptists "distinctively  and  strongly"  seemed  to  "in- 
sist" upon  imm.ersion  in  their  literature,  their  prac- 
tice was  generally  to  the  contrary.  "To  be  baptized 
in  -water.''''  with  Hubmair,  was  simply  "to  pour  out- 
'wa7-d  zvater  over  the  confessor  of  his  sins" — the  word 
iieberoicsien.  to  ''''pour  over.,''''  being  used.  With 
Rothmgnu  and  his  Colleagues,  in  the  "Confession  of 


Dutch    Anti- Pedobaptism.  105 

tlie  Two  Sacraments,"  ^^inuncrsion'"'  and  ^'■be  sprink 
lino  zviih  ■zvatcr"'  were  alike  synonymous  with  bap- 
tism; and  so  Menno  could  define  baptism  scriptur- 
ally  as  a  symbolic  burial  and  resurrection,  and  yet 
represent  baptism  as  the  receiving-  of  a  ''handful  of 
water.''  So  no  doubt  of  the  other  similar  specimens 
of  Anabaptist  literature  quoted  by  Dr.  Thomas  from 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  truth  is  that  earl}-  Ana- 
baptist literature  pays  but  little  attention  to  the 
subject  of  immersion  which,  in  view  of  the  preva- 
lence of  sprinkling-  on  the  continent,  would  be  re- 
markable indeed  if  the  Anabaptists  were  immersion- 
ists;  but  the  mystery  is  explained  by  the  fact  that, 
while  they  recognized  immersion  as  the  scriptural 
form  of  baptism  and  so  wrote,  they,  like  other 
Christians,  practiced  sprinkling  or  pouring  them- 
selves.* 

In  their  zeal  for  "believers'  baptism"  as  opposed 
to  "infant  baptism"  they  lost  sight  of  the  mode; 
and  Hoffman  went  so  far  as  to  issue  a  proclamation 
suspending  baptism  for  two  years  altogether^  in  order 
to  popularize  the  principles  of  Antipedobaptism. 
It  seems  that  the  entire  Christian  world,  in  the  Six- 
teenth Century,  fell  under  the  sprinkling  spell,  and  it 
was  only  the  Baptists  who  in  1641  finally  recovered 
from  the  practice  in  England,  while  the  Protestants, 
like  the  Catholics,  permanently  lost  immersion. 

There  is  no  evidence  of  any  discussion  among  the 
Anabaptists  on  the  subject  of  immersion,  and  only 
occasional  allusions  to  it,  up  to  1574,  when  the  Po- 
land brethren  adopted  an  immersion  creed;  and  it  is 
evident,  up  to  that  time,  that  they  had  no  vigorous 
convictions  as  to  the  baptismal  mode.     They  did 


*Thev  evidently  took  the  yiew  that  while  immersion  was  the  mode, 
it  was  not  of  the  subxlnyicc  of  baptism  which,  to  them,  meant  the  appli- 
cation of  water  as  tli(»  symbolic  cleansiufr  of  sin — and  lliercfore  death  to 
sin  and  ncwnessof  life' illustrated  by  immersion.  They  were  Ilaptists. 
however, in  person  and  princii>Ie, although  they  did  not  always  wear  the 
Baptist  uniform  as  thev  ou(fht  to  have  done.  A  man  may  be  e»svnlially 
a  Raptist  iu  principle  though  uot  technically  a  Baptist  in  form  and  vice 


versa 


106  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

sporadically,  here  and  there,  practice  immersion  as 
at  St.  Gall,  in  the  river  Sitter,  at  Strasburg-  and 
Augsburg-,  and  perhaps  other  places;  but  the  evi- 
dence is  to  the  contrary  of  any  ordinary  or  g-eneral 
practice  of  immersion  anywhere  among-  them.  Their 
g-reat  leaders  V7ere  affusionists  with  little  if  any  ex- 
ception, even  to  Menno  himself;  and  it  was  not  until 
1574  in  Poland,  1620  in  Holland,  and  1641  in  Eng-- 
land  that  the  Anabaptists  distinctively  changed  to 
immersion  by  a  restoration  of  the  ordinance  as  hav- 
ing- been  "lost,"  "corrupted,"  "disused" — not  as 
something  new,  but  "ancient." 


Upon  the  -whole,  and  in  conclusion,  I  plant  myself 
upon  Crosby's  position,  that,  prior  to  1640-41,  im- 
mersion as  believers' baptism,  "had  for  some  time 
been  disused"  in  England;  and  that  the  "antient 
practice"  -was  "restored,"  at  that  period,  by  what 
he  designates  the  "English  Baptists"  as  a  body  and 
without  distinction,  except  as  to  Successionists  and 
Anti-successionists.  I  also  adopt  his  clear  intima- 
tion that  the  ordinance  had  also  been  lost  in  Hol- 
land, where,  he  s^.ys,  the  Foreign  Protestants  ^^/lad 
used  immei'sion  for  some  time'''  only,  when  Blunt  -was 
sent  for  it  to  the  Collegiants,  who  had  lately  re- 
stored it  in  1620.  (Vol.  I.,  pp.  97,  102. )  Crosby  is 
right  as  to  the  disuse  and  restoration  of  immersion 
both  in  England  and  on  the  Continent  among  the 
Anti-pedobaptists. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
Revolution  and  Evolution. 


REVOLUTIONS  are  the  safety  valves  of  society. 
Sometimes  they  are  gradual  and  peaceful — 
ag-ain  sudden  and  explosive.  They  are  the  result 
of  retarded  or  suppressed  truth,  and  of  long-  domi- 
nating errors;  and  sometimes  like  the  cyclone  and 
the  blizzard,  they  come  to  relieve  stagnation  and 
restore  the  equilibrium,  the  purity  and  the  truth- 
developing  elements  latent  in  the  moral  and  spirit- 
ual atmosphere.  They  are  necessary  to  a  world 
engulfed  in  evil;  essential  to  the  perpetual  develop- 
ment of  truth  and  righteousness,  however  potent  in 
themselves,  or  harnessed  and  operated  of  God.  As 
in  the  natural  so  in  the  supernatural  economies. 
The  history  of  this  world  is  a  checkered  series  of 
triumphant  consummations  and  engulfing  cata- 
clysms, from  the  Garden  of  Eden  to  the  Millennium; 
and  the  only  solution  of  the  social,  political  and 
religious  problems,  in  the  singular  revolutions  of 
time,  is  the  Cross  of  Cavalry.  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
secret  of  history  and  the  explanation  of  all  its  rev- 
olutionary mysteries  and  results. 

The  Baptist  Denomination  is  the  creature  of  rev- 
olution and  evolution;  and  it  has  ever  and  will  ever 
continue  to  be  the  mighty  factor  in  the  great  reli- 
gious revolutions  of  the  ages,  in  the  machinery  of 
whose  moral  and  spiritual  movements  it  is  the  bal- 
ance wheel  within  the  wheel  of  Providence.  We 
are  not  a  reformation,  but  an  evolution  from  the 
apostles  till  now;  and  yet  within  ourselves  we  have 
been  the  subject  of  many  revolutions  and  reforma- 
tions through  our  long  and  checkered  course  of  de- 
velopment.    From  the  Second  to  the  Twelfth  Cea- 

(107) 


108  Review  (if  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

tury  we  were  the  anti-Catholic  sects  in  conflict  with 
baptismal  reg-eneration,  infant  bapiism,  hierarchy, 
impure  churchism,  unevang-elical  life — developing 
throug"h  crude  forms  and  elemental  variations  from 
which  we  can  distinguish  Baptist  traces,  and  which 
planted  the  seeds  of  truth  for  a  higher  and  better 
evolution.  The  Anabaptists  of  the  Twelfth  and 
succeeding  centuries  were  still  nearer  Baptist — pro- 
jecting a  more  evangelical  doctrine  and  life  into  the 
deadly  darkness  of  the  Mediaeval  Ages — opening 
up  a  broader  and  clearer  way  to  the  great  Antipedo- 
baptist  movement  and  Reformation  of  the  Sixteenth 
Century;  and  while  their  development  was  irregular 
in  outward  form  and  method — often  widely  apart  or 
broken  up — yet  through  all  their  checkered  way 
and  fiery  ordeal  we  discover  our  people,  more  or 
less  distinct,  still  persistent  in  Baptist  principle 
and  purpose  towards  the  ultimate  end  and  outcome 
of  a  still  higher  and  better  evolution.  From  the 
Sixteenth  to  the  middle  of  the  Seventeenth  Century, 
the  star  of  Antipedobaptism  rose  and  relumed  with 
a  brighter,  steadier  ray,  though  oft  obscured  by 
error  within  or  persecution  without,  until  it  fixed  its 
more  evangelical  orbit  in  the  name,  the  principles 
and  the  practices  of  the  Baptist  Denomination  of 
England;  and  then  it  almost  ceased  ere  long  to 
shine  over  the  Continental  provinces  where,  through 
so  many  ages,  it  waxed  and  waned  until  it  was  well 
nigh  extinguished  in  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth 
centuries. 

Even  in  England  since  the  Seventeenth  Century 
the  course  of  Baptist  development  has  been  revolu- 
tionary and  irregular;  and  up  to  the  present  time 
there  is  but  a  small  section  of  the  denomination 
which  has  so  far  separated  from  the  main  body  as 
to  be  called  strictly  Baptistic  according  to  gospel 
principle  and  practice.  Nevertheless  great  strides 
have  been  made  in  learning,  liberty,  Sunday  school, 
missionary,  benevolent  and  other  forms  of  evangel- 


Revolution  and  Evolution.  109 

ical  life  and  activity  since  the  middle  of  the  Sev- 
enteenth Centurj^;  and  it  is  to  the  g"lory  especially 
of  the  Calvinistic  Baptists  of  England  that  they 
were  foremost  in  every  strug-gle  for  freedom,  and 
that,  in  1793,  they  projected  the  first  g-reat  foreig-n 
missionary  movement  in  modern  times.  A  larg-e 
body  of  the  Eng-lish  Baptists,  however,  are  on  the 
"down  grade,"  and  without  a  revolution  and  a  ref- 
ormation, the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  the 
"Baptist  Union"  will  dissolve  in  doctrinal  chaos — 
another  evidence  that  Baptists  cannot  exist  apart 
from  doctrinal  truth  as  well  as  evang-elical  life. 

America  became  the  cong-enial  soil  for  the  im- 
plantation of  Baptist  principles,  about  the  same 
time  that  Antipedobaptism  became  triumphant 
under  the  name  of  the  Baptist  denomination  of 
Eng-land.  Here  we  beg-an  a  career  oi  purer  scrip- 
tural orthodoxy  and  life;  and  yet  our  evolution  to- 
wards a  hig-her  perfection  in  education  and  activity 
has  been  characterized  by  man}^  chang^es  and  refor- 
mations within  ourselves.  We  inherited  the  spirit 
of  freedom  from  our  English  brethren  in  the  great 
contest  for  political  and  relig^ious  liberty  in  Amer- 
ica, in  which,  as  a  denomination,  we  were  foremost 
and  almost  alone;  and  in  which,  according-  to  Dr. 
Grif&s,  the  proud  compliment  was  won  that  the 
constitution  of  the  United  States  is  "an  Anabaptist 
document."  We  also  followed  our  Eng-lish  brethren 
in  the  exercise  of  an  enlarg-ed  missionary  spirit  and 
in  the  adoption  of  org-anized  methods  for  the  exten- 
sion of  the  gospel  to  all  the  world;  and  in  the  exer- 
cise of  our  theory  and  plan  of  missionary  operations 
we  have  underg-one  a  revolutionary  or  reformatory 
chang-e  in  separating-  from  the  anti-missionary 
elements  which  hampered  the  g-rcat  work.  In  1S45, 
Northern  and  Southern  Baptists  revolutionized 
ag-ain  and  separated  upon  the  slavery  question;  and 
the  question  thus  ag-itated  between  tlic  two  sections 
was  only  settled  by  the  bloody  arbitrament  of  the 


110  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whildtt  Question. 

sword  in  which  Baptists  and  all  other  Christians 
eng-ag-ed  on  both  sides  of  the  conflict. 

Since  1845  in  the  South  the  great  "Landmark" 
question  originated  among-  Baptists  and  we  have 
been  sharply  divided,  though  not  separated,  upon 
the  "succession"  theory  upon  which  the  Landmark 
idea  is  now  essentially  based.  In  the  North,  and 
larg-ely  in  the  South,  however,  there  has  remained 
a  strong-  conservative  element  of  Baptists  who  op- 
pose the  "high  church"  idea  and  occupy  the  position 
of  the  denomination  up  to  1845;  and  it  is  to  this 
conservative  element  we  must  look  for  the  continued 
normal  development  of  our  people  towards  evang-el- 
ical  spirit  and  principle  which  have  always  charac- 
terized true  Baptist  history — avoiding-  the  extreme 
of  literalism  on  the  one  hand  and  liberalism  on  the 
other. 

More  recently  the  Landmark  or  Succession  move- 
ment has  assumed  a  more  pronounced  attitude  in 
view  of  the  Whitsitt  Question.  Many  anti-succes- 
sionists  or  anti-landmarkers  disagree  with  Dr. 
Whitsitt;  but  the  Successionists  or  Landmarkers 
universally  oppose  Dr.  Whitsitt  on  the  theory  that 
both  scripture  and  history  demand  "the  orderly  and 
uabroken  succession  of  Baptist  churches  from  the 
Apostles  till  now  "  Dr.  Whitsitt  and  those  who 
ag-ree  with  him,  therefore,  are  pronounced,  "here- 
tics," "traitors,"  "Judases"  and  the  like;  and  of  late 
the  battle  cry  has  been  raised:  ''''The  soul  of  J.  R. 
Graves  goes  marching  on.''''  With  the  sounding-  of 
this  mighty  slog-an  we  are  warned  that  the  Land- 
mark line  of  battle  is  specifically  drawn  upon  the 
"Whitsitt  Question; '  and  others  are  appealing-  to 
the  shades  of  Broadtis.,  Boyce,  Fuller,  Jeter.,  Bur7'ozvs, 
and  others  on  the  other  side  of  the  line. 

In  conformity  with  the  battle  cry  of  the  Succes- 
sionists, the  Kentucky  Baptist  General  Association, 
followed  in  Spirit  by  the  Mississippi  and  Louisiana 
Baptist  Conventions,  passed  resolutions  requesting 


Revolution  and  Evolution.  Ill 

Dr.  Whitsitt's  resignation  chiefly  upon  the  ground 
of  his  historical  theory;  and  all  this,  too,  in  the  face 
of  a  peaceful  adjustment  of  the  matter  at  the  South- 
ern Baptist  Convention,  in  the  Board  of  the  Semi- 
nary Trustees,  the  only  body  having- jurisdiction  of 
the  matter,  and  in  which  the  opposition  concerned 
clearly  acquiesced.  Hence,  we  are  in  the  vortex  of 
another  revolution  unless  the  difficulty  can  be  other- 
wise peacefully  adjusted;  for  some  are  privately 
and  publicly  demanding  that  the  Seminary  shall  wort' 
be  placed  under  Landmark  control — not  simply  that 
Dr.  Whitsitt  shall  be  removed.  The  Landmark 
question  still  lives;  and  it  is  t/ic  question,  above  all 
others,  which  now  confronts  the  "Whitsitt  Ques- 
tion." The  rallying  cry  in  the  name  of  the  great 
J.  R,  Graves,  followed  by  the  speedy  action  of  the 
Kentucky  and  other  general  bodies,  based  chiefly 
upon  Dr.  Whitsitt's  "theory,"  are  in  evidence  of  the 
fact;  and  I  could  cite,  if  necessary,  many  public  and 
private  utterances  in  proof  of  my  assumption. 

I  am  reminded  of  Galileo  before  the  Inquisition 
of  Rome.  "The  Scriptures  teach,"  said  Rome, 
"that  the  earth  does  not  move;"  and  in  vain  did 
Galileo  argue  that  the  Scriptures  only  speak  phe- 
nomenally on  scientific  lines.  But  Galileo  must  re- 
cant, upon  his  knees,  the  Copernican  "heresy." 
Rising  up,  he  exclaimed  in  undertone:  E  pur  si 
muove — "It  does  move  for  all  thati"  Alas!  that  thii 
hoary  sage,  this  high  priest  of  the  stars,  should 
have  lost  a  martyr's  crown!  The  Kentucky  and 
the  Mississippi  and  other  Conventions,  according  to 
the  Landmark  dogma,  virtually  say  to  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt: "Recant  your  heresy  against  Scripture  and 
history  which  demand  that  the  English  Anabap- 
tists must  have  immersed  before  1641,  or  else  step 
down  and  out."  In  vain  would  Dr.  Whitsitt  show 
that  there  is  neither  Scripture  nor  history  for  such 
a  dogma;  and  if  he  were  to  kneel  and  recant,  he 
would  have  to  rise  with  an  undertone  exclamation: 


112  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

"There  was  no  such  practice,  for  all  that!"  He  will 
accept  the  martyr's  crown  the  rather — and  so  of 
those  who  agree  with  him. 

How  different  the  tone  of  Christian  scholarship! 
Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  who  seeks  to  overthrow  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt's  theory,  says:  "The  historic  question  opened 
by  Dr.  Whitsitt  seems  to  me  perfectly  legitimate 
and  fairly  entitled  to  candid  investigation.  I  do 
not  sympathize  with,  nor  do  I  easily  understand, 
the  expression  of  resentment  because  of  the  frank 
expression  of  opinion  upon  a  matter  of  remote  fact 
having,  in  the  opinion  of  most  Baptists,  no  serious 
present  significance."  Again  he  says:  "It  would 
be  indecorous,  not  to  say  silly,  to  affect  to  treat  as 
insignificant  the  formidable  array  of  testimony 
which  has  convinced  so  discriminating  a  judge  as 
Dr.  Whitsitt,  to  say  nothing  of  the  later  concurrence 
of  careful  and  competent  investigators,  such  as  pro- 
fessors Newman  and  Vedder."  Dr.  Newman  who 
agrees  with  Dr.  Whitsitt  in  theory,  and  yet  who 
urged  his  apology  for  the  manner  in  which  he  in- 
troduced his  thesis,  says:  "Dr.  Whitsitt's  services  to 
the  denomination  have  been  too  long  continued,  and 
too  distinguished,  and  his  loyalty  to  the  principles 
and  practices  of  the  denomination  too  thoroughly 
tested,  to  admit  of  his  being  deposed  and  dishonor- 
ed for  heresy  and  disloyalty.  The  conclusions  that 
he  has  reached  are,  in  the  main,  such  as  have  long 
been  accepted  by  the  great  majority  of  those  who 
have  made  a  specialty  of  Baptist  history." 

The  Kentucky  resolutions,  in  the  face  of  the  Wil- 
mington adjustment,  strike  a  deadly  blow  and  in- 
flict a  wound  which  will  not  soon,  if  ever,  be  healed. 
Whether  they  shall  divide  the  denomination  or  not, 
they  demand  a  humiliation  of  Dr.  Whitsitt,  which, 
in  the  light  of  Baptist  history,  would  bring  perma- 
nent disgrace  upon  us  in  the  eyes  of  the  scholarly 
and  the  Christian  world.  I  would  appeal  to  our 
brethren  of  every  shade  of  difference  to  forbear  this 


Revolution  and  Evolution.  113 

unholy  and  unhappy  movement  to  degrade  the  Pres- 
ident of  our  Seminary  upon  a  question  of  history  in 
which  he  is  evidently  rig-ht.  I  appeal  ag^ain  to  those 
who  stand  upon  higher  Baptist  giound  to  stand  fast 
against  the  dogma  of  traditional  succession  in  the 
future,  as  we  have  against  hard-shellism  in  the  past; 
and  let  us  plant  ourselves  more  firmly  upon  the 
Word  of  God  as  our  sole  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
Whatever  the  glorious  history  of  Baptists  as  a  peo- 
ple from  the  apostles  till  now,  let  us  not  base  it 
upon  tradition  as  of  inquisitorial  authority  and  a 
test  of  orthodoxy  equal  with  the  Bible.  Even 
"Baptist  usage,"  like  Baptist  history,  is  sometimes 
a  variable  and  questionable  rule  of  authority;  and 
the  only  infallible  standard  of  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline among  Baptists  is  the  Gospel.  For  his  early 
mistakes  Dr.  Whitsitt  has  amply  explained  and 
apologized;  and  his  historical  theory  involves  only 
a  matter  of  opinion  and  not  an  article  of  Baptist 
faith  or  practice. 

Finally,  my  mind  has  not  changed  with  regard  to 
the  spirit  of  this  controversy.  With  some,  its  tone 
is  Romish  in  its  intolerance  and  severity.  However 
honest  the  convictions  of  traditionalism,  it  inspires 
an  unspiritual  and  inquisitorial  pride.  It  crucified 
Christ,  made  all  the  martyrs  and  throttled  conscience 
in  all  the  ages.  Some  have  privately  suggested 
that  Dr.  Whitsitt  "ought  to  be  burnt  in  effigy;"  and 
but  for  our  creed  of  liberty  and  want  of  power,  a  few 
of  us  might  rekindle  again  the  fires  of  Smithfield. 
The  spirit  is  here.  Some  of  our  journalism,  to  say 
nothing  of  oral  utterances  and  private  correspon- 
dence, is  full  of  hate,  venom,  crimination,  ridicule, 
and  harsh  epithet — the  echoes  of  ignorance,  super- 
stition and  bigotry.  Some  have  adopted  the  Rom- 
ish motto  that  "the  end  justifies  the  means"  in  do- 
ing evil  that  good  may  come!  Demagogy  and  syco- 
phantcy,  too,  are  here  and  there  prominent  in  the 
wake  of  popular  proscription  and  persecuting  power; 
8 


114  Review  of  Dr.  J.  B.  Thomas  on  the  Whitsitt  Question. 

and,  as  usual,  they  are  sometimes  expert  in  the  use 
of  this  unhappy  occasion  to  promote  discord,  seek 
profit  or  preferment,  or  take  reveng-e.  I  mention 
the  thing's  I  see  and  hear  and  read  with  sadness  and 
sorrow — not  to  wound  the  heart  of  any,  but  to  cor- 
rect these  evils;  and  I  wish  to  aver  that,  in  my  soul, 
I  have  no  ill-will  even  to  those  who  have  soug-ht  my 
hurt  in  this  contention.  I  congratulate  those,  on 
both  sides,  who  have  maintained  an  honorable  and 
brotherly  attitude  towards  each  other;  and,  for  my- 
self, I  can  say  God  bless  all  my  brethren  howsoever 
much  they  may  differ  from  me  in  opinion. 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE   QUESTION. 


By  GEO.  A.  LOFTON,  D.D. 


UNIVERSITY   I'RKSS  CO.,  XASHVILLK,  TKNN. 
1*P.  234  ;   CLOTH.  50  CENTS. 


TESTIMONIALS. 

From  Dr.  Henry  C.  Vedder,  Professor  of  Church  His- 
torj',  Crozer  Theological  Seminary: 

"A  week  ag-o  precisely  I  mailed  to  the  Christian  Index 
some  comments  on  the  Bampfield  Document,  in  which  I 
took  exactly  the  yround  of  your  main  contention,  namely: 
That  Crosby  and  Evans  distinctly  favor  the  opinion  that 
immersion  was  introduced  in  1641,  and  that  Dr.  Whitsitt 
has  rediscovered  what  was  once  the  general  opinion  among 
informed  Baptists.  The  tradition  that  English  Baptists 
always  immersed  is  really  of  late  origin,  and  apparently 
of  Atnerican  origin,  since  no  reputable  English  writer  can 
be  quoted  in  its  favor  before  the  beginning  of  the  present 
controversy.  Your  book  foreshadows  the  triumphant  vindi- 
cation that  is  sure  to  come  to  Dr.  Whitsitt  in  time." 

From  Dr.  A.  H.  Newman.  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of 
Church  History,  McMaster  University,  Toronto,  Canada: 

"I  have  looked  over  with  much  interest  your  "Review  of 
the  Question."  Your  part  of  the  work  is  highly  creditable. 
Professor  Vedder  has  reviewed  the  situation  briefly  but 
effectively.  The  book  should  have  a  large  circulation 
among  such  Baptists  as  are  interested  in  the  question  and 
are  only  desirous  of  getting  at  the  facts." 

Dr.  Wm.  H.  Whitsitt,  Professor  of  Church  History,  South- 
ern Baptist  Theological  Seminary,  says: 

"The  work  of  Dr.  Lofton  occupies  a  niche  of  its  own. 
It  has  of  late  been  triumphantly  demonstrated  from  original 
sources  that  immersion  was  first  introduced  among  the 
English  Anabaptists  about  the  year  1641.  Dr.  Lofton  has 
now  shown  that  this  conclusion  was  accepted  by  Thomas 
Crosby,  the  earliest  English  historian.  *  *  *  i)r.  Evans 
who  wrote  in  the  early  sixties  of  our  century,  was  able 

(115) 


116  Testimonials. 

once  more  to  g"ain  access  to  orig^inal  documents,  and  he 
returns  to  the  position  occupied  by  Crosby.  Dr.  Lofton 
makes  it  clear  that  this  action  by  Evans  is  nothing-  but  a 
return  to  the  ancient  landmarks  of  our  Baptist  history. 
*  *  *  This  is  an  excellent  service  by  Dr.  Lofton  and 
deserves  recognition." 

Dr.  W.  Pope  Yeaman,  who  wrote  the  introduction  to  Dr. 
Lofton's  book,  says: 

"It  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  pre- 
ponderance of  probability  is  on  the  side  of  the  VVhitsitt 
contention.  The  testimony  introduced  by  some  of  Dr. 
Whitsitt's  reviewers,  but  omitted  by  him,  evidently  cor- 
roborates the  testimony  which  he  has  introduced  and 
greatly  strengthens  his  cause.  *  *  *  Drs.  Lofton,  New- 
man and  Vedder,  have  in  their  respective  treatments  of 
the  subject  of  this  volume,  evinced  an  unpartizan,  un- 
prejudiced and  Christian  spirit  of  inquirj',  research  and 
argument.  The  reader  who  cares  more  for  the  truth  than 
for  partizan  triumph  will  read  the  following  pages  with 
pleasure  and  profit." 

Dr.  J.  3.  Hawthorne  says  in  the  Baptist  and  Reflector: 
"Dr.  Lofton's  book,  "A  Review  of  the  Question,"  is  a 
valuable  contribution  to  Baptist  literature.  In  it  he  not 
only  exhibits  a  vast  deal  of  historical  information,  but  he 
demonstrates  his  capacity  for  historical  criticism.  It  is 
apparent  that  he  writes  in  no  partizan  spirit.  He  sets 
before  us  historical  facts,  and  in  the  light  of  them  leads  us 
to  conclusions  that  are  perfectly  natural  and  logical." 

Prof.  A.  T.  Robertson,  of  the  Southern  Baptist  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  says: 

"I  was  already  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  Dr.  Whit- 
sitt's position  about  the  English  Baptists  before  reading 
your  book.  You  have  fortified  that  conviction  and  have 
put  the  matter  so  that  the  non-historian  can  see  it  clearly. 
Your  use  of  Crosby  is  happy  and  just  unanswerable." 

The  Journal  and  Messenger  ol  Cincinnati  says: 
"Both  the  review  of  Dr.  Lofton  and  also  that  of  Prof. 
Newman  are  worthy  of  careful  consideration,  and  bear 
very  heavily  against  Dr.  Whitsitt's  critics  and  in  favor  of 
his  book.  *  *  *  We  should  be  glad  if  all  who  have  read 
any  of  the  antagonistic  volumes  could  read  this.  We 
believe  that  it  would  help  to  ground  them  in  the  truth." 


Testimonials.  117 

The  Christian  Index,  of  Atlanta,  Ga  ,.says: 
"Dr.  Lofton  has  prepared  a  volume  of  much  interest  and 
no  little  value.  It  is  a  restatement  of  the  arguments  for  the 
theory  of  the  introduction  of  immersion  in  Eng-land  in 
1641.  It  also  g-ives  in  full  the  papers  of  Dr.  Newman  as 
orig'inally  published  in  the  Index,  and  a  paper  by  Dr. 
Vedder  from  the  Examiner.  *  *  *  The  book  is  a  very 
strong-  presentation  and  the  spirit  is  good.  We  do  not 
believe  a  fairer  discussion  can  be  found.  Dr.  Lofton  makes 
out  a  strong-  case." 

The  Baptist  Outlook,  of  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  says: 
"Dr.  George  A.  Lofton  has  just  published  a  volume 
under  the  appropriate  title,  "A  Review  of  the  Question," 
including  Messrs  Newman's  and  Vedder's  contributions, 
in  which  he  espouses  Dr.  Whitsitt's  side  of  the  controversy 
with  much  ability;  and  it  seems  to  us  that  those  who  have 
joined  in  the  somewhat  prejudiced  attack  on  Dr.  Whitsitt 
ought  in  honor  to  read  Dr.  I^ofton's  Review.  The  simple 
question  is:  'What  are  the  facts?'  " 

Dr.  B.  H.  Carroll  in  an  article  in  the  Texas  Baptist 
Standard  on  the  Whitsitt  Question,  while  disagreeing  with 
Dr.  Lofton,  says: 

'The  ablest  work  written  on  the  Whitsitt  side  of  the  con- 
troversy, is  that  of  Dr.  Lofton.*' 

The  Evangel,  of  Baltimore,  Md.,  says: 

"Dr.  Lofton's  book  sustains  Dr.  Whitsitt's  position  that 
the  English  Anabaptists  restored  immersion  as  believer's 
baptism  in  the  j'car  1641.  It  is  a  dignified  production 
written  in  a  Christian  spirit. 

The  Alabama  Baptist  says: 

"Dr.  Lofton's  book  sustains  Dr.  Whitsitt  in  his  position 
that  the  English  Anabaptists  restored  immersion  as  be- 
liever's baptism  in  the  j'ear  1641.  This  is  a  scholarly, 
dignified  production,  and  is  worth  reading.  ' 

Dr.  C.  S.  Gardner  in  the  Baptist  Courier,  Greeneville, 
S.  C: 

"I  can  commend  Dr.  Lofton's  book,  "A  Review  of  the 
Question,''  to  the  readers  ot  the  Courier.  Dr.  Lofton  has 
long  been  a  student  of  Baptist  history,  and  what  he  says 
is  worth  reading.     In  this  book   he  has  performed  a  real 


118  Testimonials. 

and  valuable  service,  and  will  help  his  readers  to  get  a 
clear  and  intelligent  view  of  the  historical  question  around 
which  controversy  has  been  raging  for  several  months. 
*  *  *  j)j-.  Lofton  is  known  to  be  thoroughly  sound  and 
conservative  in  his  theological  views  and  in  his  earnest 
devotion  to  Baptist  principles;  and  I  take  pleasure  in 
recommending  his  really  valuable  contribution  to  the 
literature  of  this  subject,  including  Dr.  Newman's  articles 
published  in  the  Christian  Index,  and  an  article  by  Dr. 
Vedder  in  the  Examiner.''^ 

The  Central  Baptist: 

"Dr.  Lofton's  book  is  a  valuable  contribution  to  a  dis- 
cussion which  has  created  a  great  deal  of  interest." 

The  American  Baptist  Flag,  while  disagreeing  with  the 
author   says: 

"Dr.  Lofton  has  written  the  ablest  book  on  the  Whitsitt 
side  of  the  controversy." 


UNIVERSITY  ot  CALlFuKXiiA 

AT 
LOS  ANGELES 


T   rtJD  A  f  V 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    001  252  374    2 


